reading reviews on disaster management

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpre20

Download by: [City University of Hong Kong Library] Date: 10 January 2018, At: 18:26

The Pacific Review

ISSN: 0951-2748 (Print) 1470-1332 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpre20

Dealing with natural disasters

Angela Pennisi di Floristella

To cite this article: Angela Pennisi di Floristella (2016) Dealing with natural disasters, The Pacific Review, 29:2, 283-305, DOI: 10.1080/09512748.2015.1013498

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.1013498

Published online: 16 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 777

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Dealing with natural disasters

Risk society and ASEAN: a new approach to disaster management

Angela Pennisi di Floristella

Abstract Over the past two decades, natural disasters have severely hit the Southeast Asian region causing dramatic environmental, economic and social consequences. Through the lens of Beck’s risk society framework and the theory of reflexive modernization, this article attempts at empirically taking stock of how the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is addressing disaster risk through the creation of new regional institutions and mechanisms. In particular, it argues that the accumulation of the experience of catastrophes is leading ASEAN members towards the development of new precautionary initiatives to deal with disasters, and to forge a new way forward for the promotion of disaster cooperation and joint emergency response. The article is divided into five sections, which will only consider initiatives endorsed within the ASEAN framework. The first introduces risk societies as forms of modern societies and of the insecurities of the present world. In the second section attention is drawn to natural disasters as a paradigmatic example of Beck’s risk society. The third section explores how ASEAN normative governance is evolving to include the issue of disaster management within its security and social agenda. Then the main institutional and operational innovations and tools through which ASEAN is preparing to deal with disaster risk are explored. Finally, the article suggests that despite ASEAN overall institutional innovations, the practice of cooperation still is effected by several factors, above all the lack of adequate resources and the difficulty of reconciling principles of solidarity with national sovereignty, which hinder ASEAN effectiveness in this area.

Keywords: Risk societies; ASEAN; disaster management; natural disasters; regional cooperation.

Introduction

Southeast Asia is one of the world’s most vulnerable regions to suffer from a range of natural disasters. Over the last years, earthquakes, typhoons, the

Angela Pennisi di Floristella is a post-doctoral fellow at the Research College of the Transfor- mative Power of Europe, at the Free University of Berlin and research fellow at the Depart- ment of Political and Social Studies, at the University of Catania (Italy).

Address: Freie Universit€at Berlin, KFG, Ihnestr. 26, 14195 Berlin. E-mail: angela.pennisi@ fu-berlin.de; [email protected] Department of Political and Social Studies, University of Catania, via Vittorio Emanuele, 49, I - 95131 Catania (Italy).

� 2015 Taylor & Francis

The Pacific Review, 2016 Vol. 29, No. 2, 283�305, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.1013498

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

rise of the sea level, volcanic eruptions, droughts, heat waves and tsunamis, are becoming more frequent and severe (Letchumanan 2010: 52), and they are aggravated by relentless urbanization, rapid population growth, increasing economic exposure and climate change. In the period from 2001 to 2009, disaster events in this region have accounted for 14% of the world’s total number of disasters during the same period. Since 2000, they have detrimentally affected the security and well-being of Southeast Asian communities, with more than 100 million people in ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) member states affected by catastrophic events (EM-DAT International Disaster Database), and each year, on average, the region suffers damage in excess of US$4.4 billion as a consequence of natural hazards (The World Bank 2012).

As in other regions of the world, disasters as a constant threat on an entirely new scale have posed ‘a new necessity to reinvent political institu- tions and invent new ways of conducting politics at social sites that we pre- viously considered un-political’ (Beck 1999: 93). Thus, despite the ASEAN states’ unique approach centered on the commitment to solidarity, infor- mality, minimal institutionalization and non-interference (Acharya 2009; Narine 2008; Caballero-Anthony 1998), policy makers in Southeast Asia have started to re-think traditional modalities of cooperation to develop new forms of multilateral partnerships based on the creation of common institutions and, new cooperative regulatory systems to better deal with disasters.

Differently from European studies where there is currently a lively debate on new regional and international initiatives in response to emer- gency events of populations hurt by natural disasters (Boin, Ekengren and Rhinard 2013; Boin and Ekengren 2009; Attin�a 2012), conventionally defined as a serious disruption � caused by hazards that are of natural origin � of the functioning of a community or a society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the abil- ity of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction � UNISDR 2009: 9), studies on ASEAN have surprisingly paid limited attention in analyzing how Southeast Asian governments have come to cooperate on disaster issues at a regional level under the auspices of ASEAN. Main exceptions are the studies of Guilloux (2009) who started to explore regional responses to disasters and the related implications for regional governance mechanisms, Collins’s contribution (2013), which placed ASEAN disaster policy among one of the new dimensions of ASEAN peo- ple-oriented rhetoric, and Caballero-Anthony’s works (2009, 2012) calling for the responsibility to protect approach, to cope with humanitarian emer- gencies and crises. In general, scholars studying this regional institution have mostly explored the securitization of a number of man-made disas- ters, typically described as any large-scale human violence, anthropogenic threat involving human intent, negligence, or error, and failure of a

284 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

human-made system causing huge sufferance and loss of life and property to people (UNISDR 2009: 9), such as pandemic diseases, terrorism and trans-national crime, interstate and domestic conflicts, climate change and energy (Emmers 2003; Caballero-Anthony et al. 2006; Caballero-Anthony 2008; Elliot and Caballero-Anthony 2013), as well as a ASEAN possible move towards a responsibility to protect populations facing genocide, eth- nic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity (See Seng 2011; Sukma 2012).

Against this backdrop and given the need for more up-to-date research on ASEAN’s new efforts in the arena of disaster management, the aim of this study is to empirically take stock of how ASEAN is addressing disaster risk through its various regional institutions and mechanisms. It is worth noting that in the context of this paper, the clear demarcation between nat- ural and man-made disasters is not so evident. In the contemporary world, in fact, natural disasters cannot be considered as truly natural, because the ways in which populations, governments and economic actors have manip- ulated the environment all inform the intersection between natural hazard- ous events and human-related activities. Human intervention in the forms of uncontrolled growth of urban areas with their high concentration of pop- ulation, industry and infrastructure, land degradation, deforestation, global warming and climate change are today recognized as among the global trends that affect the severity, if not the cause of natural hazards.

Based on these premises, the article deals with the following important questions: how does the anticipation of a multiplicity of natural disasters and their risky consequences affect the institutions of Southeast Asia? How is ASEAN recalibrating its institutional architecture, and to what extent is the Association, through new arrangements getting ready for preparation, prevention and disaster response?

The article will attempt to answer these questions through the lens of Beck’s risk society framework, which provides an alternative entry point for examining how societies are reacting and reorganizing themselves to respond to new risks. In particular, in accordance with Beck’s core argu- ment, that global societies and their foundations are shaken by the anticipa- tion of global catastrophes (Beck 2009), it is argued that on the basis of the lessons learned from the experience of disasters, new regional efforts have been initiated. To put it differently, the accumulation of catastrophic natural events in Southeast Asia, compounded by the need to cope with uncertainty is opening the path towards the institutionalization of new mechanisms; these are intended to prevent and mitigate risks, prepare and respond to emergency situations, and provide for recovery. Yet on the other hand, the article finally argues that despite important efforts which have been under- taken over the last decade, ASEAN’s new mandate in the field of disaster cooperation is still affected by several factors, above all the lack of adequate resources and the difficulty of reconciling principles of humanitarian solidar- ity with respect for national sovereignty and non-interference.

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 285

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

The article will illustrate these dynamics in the following five sections, which will only consider initiatives endorsed within the ASEAN frame- work. The first will present risk societies as forms of modern societies and increased insecurities of the present world. In the second section, attention is drawn to natural disasters as a paradigmatic example of Beck’s risk soci- ety. Under the lens of reflexive modernization, the third section explores how ASEAN normative governance has evolved to include the issue of disaster management within its security and social agenda. Next, drawing on first person selected interviews conducted by the author in February, 2014, in Jakarta, Indonesia we review the main institutional and opera- tional innovations and tools through which ASEAN is preparing for disas- ter risk, and the overall limits and challenges of its capacity in this field.

Risk societies

Before examining, why natural disasters can be included among the risks to be faced by contemporary risk society, it is essential to comprehend what is meant by risk society and why it can be useful to apply this theory to the ASEAN context.

In essence, as theorized by the founder of the risk society school, the German sociologist Beck, in Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Beck 1986), risk societies are the result of modernity, which has left the world more exposed to a range of unforeseen, unin- tended and unknowable outcomes. In Beck’s eyes, the notion of risk is not only associated with ‘the possibility of loss, injury or other adverse unwel- come circumstances’ (Oxford English Dictionary) but more importantly, to the side-effects of the modern era, such as pollution and environmental problems, originating in economic and technological progress and scientific achievements. In other words, risks are probabilities of adverse events con- nected to the dark side of progress, capable of generating a sense of ‘ontological insecurity’ (Giddens 1991) and uncertainty that impact human reality. In this perspective, contemporary risks are different from tradi- tional threats. They are not fixed and certain because risks are not about deterring foes or defending against identifiable threats but are more amor- phous and uncertain. Furthermore, unlike security threats, defined by the Copenhagen school (Buzan et al. 1998) in the securitization theory, risks are not about the adoption of exceptional political measures to defend a referent object against a threat. In risk society, exceptionality is indeed, replaced by the need for managing risks as a way to reduce uncertainty and limiting the possibility of harm. Termed reflexive modernization, this condi- tion is characterized by the adoption of mechanisms to forecast and evalu- ate risks in order to minimize and mitigate, prevent and manage the impact of potential side effects of technological progress (Beck 2006: 332; Beck and Holzer 2007).

286 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

As a result, risks translate as the ‘the replacement of the criteria of emer- gency and exceptional politics with a policy of longer term societal engi- neering’ (Corry 2012: 245), centered on a precautionary logic and on initiatives aimed at controlling risks, and building the capacity and resil- ience to better manage their impact. Additionally, as their effects cannot be contained and easily transfer from one place to another through spill- over and contagion, risks demand new ways of organizing societies and new forms of governance based on the development of cooperative plat- forms and on the boosting of international institutions.

Given this overall picture, what then is the benefit of applying Beck’s theory to the case of natural disasters in the ASEAN context? In the first instance, risk society provides a useful entry point for untangling the changing nature of contemporary natural disasters, as will be discussed in the next paragraph. The notion of reflexivity also provides grounds for explaining the recent efforts made by Southeast Asian leaders to face the risk of disasters through the development of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and management programs, and the institutionalization of new cooperative mechanisms at a regional level. Additionally, the framework of risk society helps to shed some light on the growing salience of ‘preparedness’ as a way to avoid, mitigate, and manage possible catastrophic events. In this regard, as pointed out by Ekberg (2007) a reflexive orientation towards risk implies that an increasing number of fields are subjected to continuous processes of monitoring and surveillance, and of decision-making adjustments founded on risk calculations (Ekberg 2007).

Last, but not least, this framework contributes to the understanding of the new nature of contemporary risks, underlined by the emerging link between human-induced activities and the growing occurrence or strength of extreme weather events. Regarding this point, climate research has revealed that the combustion of fossil fuel, land-use changes, including deforestation and forest degradation, and rapid urbanization affect atmo- spheric and ocean-warming, thus leading to changes in the rise of sea-level, and in the frequency and intensity of precipitation and cyclone activity (UN Habitat 2011; Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- mate Change (IPCC) 2012; Zhaung et al. 2013; Field et al. 2012). Several studies have also put into evidence the direct effect of sea-level rise on flooding, inundation, coastal erosion, landlines and obstructed drainage. The Special Report of the IPCC (2012: 444) highlights that some extreme weather events have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including increases in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. As a result, one cannot ignore the fact that contemporary disasters are of a new nature, because most weather-related events now have an anthropo- genic element (IPCC 2012). Inevitably, this new nature increasingly chal- lenges the authority and reach of individual states, which are not always self-sufficient in managing uncertainties on their own, thus making regional and multilateral cooperation an essential tool to cope with these insecurities.

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 287

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

In this regard, Beck argues that one of the consequences of risk society is that ‘methodological nationalism’, which equates traditional societies with nation-state societies, is increasingly put under question (Beck 2002: 51), because post-traditional societies are not the realm of individualism. To be sure, in the ASEAN context due to historical and cultural circumstances the Westphalian state became the centerpiece around which standards of appro- priate behavior for regional cooperation have been designed, and ASEAN members have traditionally rejected ‘pooling’ national competences within regional institutions, and have maintained a strictly inter-governmental mode of cooperation. Nonetheless, there is a growing recognition that the region needs to develop a new regional approach to solving today’s chal- lenges. As to regards disaster management collaboration across Southeast Asian states it is increasingly felt to be an indispensable tool, as recently recalled by Vietnamese Prime Minister Tan Dung who expressed ‘his beliefs that with efforts of regional countries the goal of establishing an ASEAN Community with strong resilience in facing disasters will be fulfilled’ (Xinhua 2013).

Natural disasters in risk society

How can contemporary natural disasters be included among the risks to be faced by risk societies? In what sense can we draw from risk society theory the framework to describe the changing nature of today’s natural disasters? In brief, what’s distinguishes the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2008 Cyclone Nargis and the 2013 Typhoon Hayan from disasters occurring in the past?

Throughout several works Beck has argued that earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, fires or floods and other pre-industrial hazards ‘no matter how large and devastating, were ‘strokes of fate’ raining down on mankind from ‘outside’ and attributable to an ‘other’ � be they gods, demons, or Nature’ (Beck 1992: 97�98; Beck and Holzer 2007: 4). In this sense, they differ from modern risks since they come from external forces, and are not based on decisions that focus on techno-economic advantages (Beck and Holzer 2007: 4). Nonetheless, in the world of today even the nature of dis- asters has changed, and Beck himself (2006: 332) has recently argued that disasters appear less random than in the past, and to a certain extent, do not seem dependent on external forces any longer (Beck 2009). As noted in the preceding paragraph, a burgeoning number of studies call attention to the fact that growing urbanization, deforestation, environmental pollu- tion and degradation, coastal erosion and climate change are all factors that can modify hazard patterns, in terms of their magnitude and fre- quency. Parthasarathy (2013: 43) has argued that Asian cities are growingly vulnerable to climate-change related disasters due to increasing urbaniza- tion, high settlement density, especially in coastal areas, heterogeneity, migration flows and poor housing. The fifth assessment of the IPCC (2014)

288 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

reveals a worrying image of likely climate change impact in the region. Across Southeast Asia temperatures have been increasing at a rate of 0.14�0.20 �C per decade since the 1960s. An increasing frequency of extreme events has been reported in the northern parts of Southeast Asia, droughts have intensified in the lowlands, and in Malaysia the frequency of extreme rainfall events and rainfall intensity have increased all over the peninsula. Likewise, the World Meteorological Organization has highlighted how the rise of global temperatures has contributed to more frequent extreme weather events (Ferris and Petz 2012: 54), and to the increasing severity of storms and floods. In the same vein, a modelling work commissioned under a study by the Asian Development Bank shows that under high emission scenarios Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines will experience, inter alia, higher mean temperatures, drier weather conditions and an increase in precipitation (especially in the Phil- ippines) (Zhaung et al. 2013: 19�20). Of no less significance, deforestation for agricultural purposes and the destruction of mangroves and coral reefs can, on one hand, alter root and soil systems, exacerbate erosion and increase the chances of flooding events, while on the other hand, they can reduce protection against tidal waves and flooding thus aggravating the impact of tsunami events.

Thereby, in many respects, contemporary natural hazards bear the prin- cipal hallmarks of Beck’s idea of modern risk. In the first instance, the growing nexus between human activities and natural events suggests the gradual erosion of a clear-cut boundary between natural disasters and anthropogenic activities, as described by Giddens with the notion of the ‘scientization of nature’ (Giddens 1998).

Second, the ‘spatial, temporal and social de-bounding’, which character- izes Beck’s uncontrollable risks (Beck 2002: 24) lies, to a certain degree, in the results of natural disasters.

Even though one might not fully accept Beck’s argument which claims the universality of risks, because in practice certain countries are more in danger than others to the risk of extreme weather events (for e.g. Singapore does not suffer from disaster risk to the degree that the Philippines, Cambodia and Indonesia do) it is none the less true that the experience of natural disasters cannot be geographically circumscribed, because their impact is transmitted rapidly as a result of economic contagion, migration and interstate tensions. Natural disasters also have a ‘temporal mobility’, i.e. a long latency period, as our understanding of the processes affecting their intensity and mitigating their effects depends on current scientific knowledge. Finally, natural disasters are also socially de-bounded, as they cannot be simply imputed to a particular agent. It is in fact the combined effect of different components, which lie behind their severity and magnitude.

In the third instance, as many other contemporary risks, natural disasters are also subjected to the inability to calculate them and to non-

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 289

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

compensability (Beck 2009: 294). They cannot be entirely forecasted and their consequences cannot be completely repaired. As a consequence, the new value on preparedness activities, based on the adoption of mechanisms of assessment and mitigation shatters assurances of financial compensation.

Lastly, natural disasters reflect the types of risks, which are central to Beck’s thesis because their perceived gravity may involuntary and unex- pectedly trigger changes in policies and institutions. As a result of the increasing futility of unilateral measures to cope with them, they can thus open a window of opportunities for new forms of governance and create a new awareness centered on the need to coordinate efforts also between states, at a regional level, where negative repercussions can be particularly felt (Caballero-Anthony 2010).

ASEAN moves towards a reflexive orientation of disasters

According to reflexive modernization, the recognition of the negative impact of natural disasters should result in self-criticism and the question- ing of current policies and practices. As a result, actors involved with disas- ter issues should push for systemic changes to improve disaster preparedness and response. Over the last decade, on various occasions, ASEAN Heads of State and Governments, the ASEAN Secretary Gen- eral, the Head of ASEAN Disaster Management and Assistance Division, and the Heads of National Agencies responsible for disaster management, forming the ASEAN Committee for Disaster Management (ACDM), have highlighted ASEAN unpreparedness and weaknesses in addressing such large-scale calamities, in their declarations and policy statements, and have committed to strengthen cooperation and coordination to enhance their capacities to better manage disaster risk.

Remarkably, in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami, ASEAN Secretary General Keng Yong (2005) recognized the failure of the Associa- tion: The earthquake and tsunami disaster of 26 December 2004 . . . laid bare our unpreparedness and our weaknesses in collectively addressing such large scale calamities. He thereby acknowledged the pitfalls of ASEAN modali- ties of regional cooperation as well as the limits of the regional security paradigm, and urged the need for more cooperative and transnational mechanisms of prevention and immediate relief (as quoted by Alles 2012: 157). Likewise, in the Declaration on Action to Strengthen Emergency Relief, Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Prevention, in the aftermath of earthquake and tsunami disaster of 2004, ASEAN Heads of State and Gov- ernments underlined the need to step up cooperation in emergency relief; rehabilitation and reconstruction; and prevention and mitigation.

In truth, concerns about disasters date back to 1971 when the ASEAN Expert Group on Disaster management met for the first time (Collins 2013: 132; Guilloux 2009), and even in 1976, the five founding members of

290 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

ASEAN stressed the importance of cooperation in this area, recognizing ‘that natural disasters and other major calamities can retard the pace of development of member states’ (ASEAN 1976). With the ASEAN Decla- ration on Mutual Assistance on Natural Disasters (1976) the need for mutual assistance in mitigation and rescue and relief of victims of natural disasters was further emphasized. The Declaration however, remained only a declaratory document lacking of a programmatic vision. Coopera- tion in this area thus remained fragmented and experts met only one time every two years to discuss technical issues rather than the development of a common ASEAN approach. It is only over the past decade after the recent dramatic catastrophes, which hit the region, that the issue of coordi- nation has been put into sharp relief (Caballero-Anthony 2010) and that ASEAN leaders have concretely initiated the search for solutions to miti- gate the effects of natural disasters and improve actions for rescue and relief.

But why did ASEAN take more than thirty years to advance coopera- tion in this area although initial steps were already taken in the Seventies? Several factors might contribute to explaining this phenomenon. In the first instance, during the Cold War the primary goal of the Association was to ensure the stability of Southeast Asian states and to preserve and consoli- date the territorial integrity and political independence of these weak post- colonial nations, additionally the Association focused on mitigating regional tensions and containing conflicts, as well as reducing the regional influence of external actors and avoiding a potential domino effect of com- munist insurgencies (Acharya 2009; Narine 2002). Inversely, in those years non-traditional security (NTS) concerns were largely left out the ASEAN agenda. It was only at the end of the Nineties, in a new global strategic environment that these challenges, including disaster management, acquired a new prominence. The severe crises from the financial and eco- nomic meltdown, to smoke-haze pollution, which severely tested ASEAN traditional security mechanisms might account for these changes (Wulan and Bandoro 2007: 41�47). Indeed, fear of becoming irrelevant and of los- ing centrality in the eyes of both the international community and civil society, moved ASEAN to attempt to revitalize its regional institutions, embarking on a wide array of new cooperative projects, extending to the realm of NTS (Nesadurai 2009). Through the initiative of Indonesia it pro- moted a new concept of comprehensive security embodied in the ASEAN Security Community (ASC) (Wulan and Bandoro 2007: 41�47), in which its members recognized, inter alia, that cooperation is needed to handle concerns that might produce effects beyond the borders of the nation state.

Nonetheless, ASEAN’s growing attention to the sphere of disaster management might, above all, be explained by functional necessities, par- ticularly by the increasing exposure of Southeast Asian countries to disas- ter-related events. Official data from the EMDAT database, summed up in Figure 1, show in fact, that over the last decade the occurrence of disasters1

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 291

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

has sharply increased in Southeast Asia. In recent years, only with the exception of Singapore, ASEAN members have had to face frequent earth- quakes, volcanic activity, droughts and other disasters of varying intensi- ties, which have also been exacerbated by human-related activities and climate change.

Growing exposure to hazardous events often combined with: (1) the lack of adequate coping capacities to reduce harm and damage in the occur- rence of an event; (2) the absence of strategies dealing with and attempting to address the negative impact of natural hazards and climate change in the future; and (3) the poor structural characteristics of Southeast Asian cities have exacted high costs in terms of human security and economic losses, as highlighted by Figure 2. Furthermore, disasters have resulted in large-scale direct effects (injury and deaths; damage and destruction); and indirect effects (homelessness, people requiring assistance, as well as loss of revenue, unemployment and market destabilization). It is to be noted

Figure 1 Trend of natural disasters in Southeast Asia. Source: EM-DAT, The International Disaster Database (CRED) Universit�e Catholique de Louvain, Brussels (Belgium).

Numbers 2010–2013 2000–2009 1990–1999

Occurrence 159 516 339

Deaths 9,518 342,341 34,474

Total

Affected

64,011,985 121,766,266 96,617,431

Total damage

(USD)

48,552,954 28,252,874 20,399,737

Figure 2 Natural disasters in Southeast Asia. Source: EM-DAT, The International Disaster Database (CRED), Universit�e Cath- olique de Louvain, Brussels (Belgium).

292 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

though, that over the last two decades, the number of people dying from natural disasters has in general not increased, with the main exceptions of the Indian Ocean Tsunami which caused the death of almost 230,000 peo- ple, and tropical Cyclone Nargis, which killed approximately 140,000 peo- ple. In contrast, the number of people affected by these disasters is getting higher. Extreme weather events have regularly displaced large numbers of people. In 2004, the tsunami compelled half a million people to migrate. In 2011, the flooding across South Thailand forced more than 40,000 people to flee their homes (Collins 2013), and posed tensions among ASEAN members, and with other neighboring states, particularly India and China. More than 4 million people were left homeless and an estimated 4 million were displaced following typhoon Hayan, in the Philippines.

It is in such a context that ASEAN members, particularly led by Indone- sia, the Philippines and Malaysia � which are mostly exposed to probabili- ties of hazardous events, have recognized that disasters have become a severe risk to the people, the economy and regional stability (Interview with High Official National Agency for Disaster Management Indonesia, BNPB).2 However, political leadership of the individual members does not seem to have played a crucial role in advancing cooperation in this area. Since most ASEAN countries are experiencing either direct or indirect consequences deriving from natural disasters, they all have a vested inter- est in enhancing joint actions at a regional level (Interview with High Offi- cial at the ASEAN Secretariat).3

Under these circumstances, in 2003, there was the first regional commit- ment to create the ACDM formed by senior official heads of ASEAN National Disaster Management Agencies, rather than by groups of experts. Significantly, the creation of a full-fledged committee, and the decision to hold regular meetings, once a year, boosted the level of discussion and opened the path for the development of a more programmatic approach. This was first initiated with the adoption of the ASEAN Regional Pro- gramme on Disaster Management (ARPDM) (2004�2010), endorsing some priority projects, including the ASEAN Response Action Plan, which can be considered as the embryonic idea of the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER).

At the same time, ASEAN’s priority for disaster management was reaf- firmed by the ASEAN leaders in the Bali Concord II of October 2003. With the agreement of the ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC, at that time ASC), ASEAN members have for the first time, widened the traditional concept of security, subscribed to the principle of comprehen- sive security and recognized that more intra-regional cooperation is needed to handle: ‘concerns that are trans-boundary in nature, and there- fore shall be addressed regionally in a holistic, integrated and comprehen- sive manner’ (ASEAN 2003). Although disasters are not directly mentioned among the sources of contemporary insecurities facing the region, it is clear that they implicitly belong to the security dimension of

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 293

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

the ASEAN Community, as shown by the fact that the same APSC Blue- print (ASEAN 2009a) calls for the strengthening of ASEAN Cooperation on Disaster Management and Emergency response to overcome new disas- ter risks by identifying a number of actions.4 Of no less importance, coop- eration in the field of disaster management has been inserted among the competences of the ASEAN Defence Ministerial Meeting, which has adopted concept papers to advance humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

Meanwhile, disaster management has also been included among the components of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC), whose primary goal is to contribute to realizing a people-centered and socially responsible community with a view to achieving enduring solidarity and unity among the peoples and member states of the ASEAN. In this regard, as noted by Collins (2013), if we agree with the idea that ASEAN is evolv- ing to foster ‘caring societies’ and to become a provider of security, there are fewer and more striking expressive measures than responding to natu- ral disasters. The necessity to intensify regional cooperation in the arena of disaster management was, indeed, conceived as a way ‘to enable individual members to fully realize their developmental potential and to enhance the mutual ASEAN spirit’ (ASEAN 2003). To this end, the ASCC Blueprint has set a number of strategic objectives: strengthen effective mechanisms and capabilities to prevent and reduce disaster loss of life, and in social, economic, and environmental assets of ASEAN Member States and to jointly respond to disaster emergencies through concerted national efforts and intensified regional and international cooperation. This has clearly been identified as a set of actions to build disaster resilient nations and safer communities (ASEAN 2009b:11).

While these documents are only a declaration of intent, they prepare the way for a truly comprehensive security approach, and importantly, they include in their scope concerns like disaster management, traditionally seen as domestic problems dependent upon national solutions and responses (Sukma 2010). Viewed in the context of ASEAN history, which has traditionally pursued an individualistic security approach and has refused joint undertakings, these statements also suggest a departure from a dominant security discourse, characterized by the state as the primary security referent, and appear to be in tune with Beck’s core argument, focused on the idea that since we are living in risk society, cooperation beyond the national state level is deemed to be essential (Beck 2006: 343). Southeast Asian leaders called, in fact, for the adoption of common actions and more intrusive measures. At the 19th ASEAN Summit in Bali, Heads of State and Governments resolved to: promote disaster resilient nations and safer communities, and stressed the need to promote partnership, strengthen efforts to address climate change adaptation, enhance civil-mili- tary coordination in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR), and facilitate regional cooperation in DRR (ASEAN 2012). The

294 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

23rd Summit in Brunei agreed on the Declaration on Enhancing Coopera- tion in Disaster Management and stressed the necessity for expanding and nurturing cooperation and coordination among ASEAN members and with relevant international organizations in promoting collaboration in disaster management and emergency response (ASEAN 2013).

Within this framework, disaster cooperation has thus expanded from soft law declarations to include specific proposals aimed at the development of regimes of control, emergency management, harm reduction and disaster relief. In summation, under the emergence of growing disaster risk, ASEAN has responded by attempting to regionalize joint efforts and envi- sioning principles of precaution, in the form of risks assessment, monitor- ing, prevention and mitigation, as well as response. Still, the real question that needs to be discussed is to what extent ASEAN’s new mandate on dis- asters has been followed by concrete achievements. In the next sections, we will discuss the main institutional innovations, in terms of policies and new operational mechanisms, undertaken by ASEAN and the overall lim- its of these efforts.

Major institutional innovations to cope with disaster risk

Besides the above-mentioned ASEAN’s statements on the need for coop- eration in the area of disaster management, the question is to what extent is the Association getting ready for the preparation, prevention, response and execution of the action plans developed by the senior officials? Since the establishment of the ACDM in 2003, which assumes overall responsi- bility for coordinating and implementing regional activities in this area, there is some evidence of policy outcomes and institutional innovations to prepare for disaster risk.

Three weeks before the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, in a meeting held in Cambodia, the ACDM endorsed the idea of developing a regional agreement on disaster management. The following tsunami, which hit four out of ten ASEAN members, expedited the start of the negotiation process by the ASEAN Heads of State and Governments and already led in July 2005, to the signing of AADMER by the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN, in Vientiane. The fact that AADMER came to be known as ‘one of the fastest-negotiated agreements in ASEAN’s history, having gone through a mere four months of negotiations’, as has been reported by the former ASEAN Secretary General Pitsuwan (Xinhua 2009) is a clear mani- festation of ASEAN’s, at least rhetorical, commitment to jointly respond- ing to disaster emergencies, and to giving priority to precautionary measures to prevent, monitor and mitigate disasters, as well as DRR efforts. It also shows the attempt to go beyond the existence of purely bilat- eral agreements dominating disaster cooperation, such as those between Indonesia and Malaysia and Malaysia and Singapore (Interview no. 2 with High Official at the AHA Center).5

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 295

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

It is also worth noting that unlike other areas of cooperation with the adop- tion of AADMER, which finally came into force in 2011, ASEAN members opted for a binding agreement. This choice marks, to a certain extent, a step beyond traditional resistance to the procedural norms of the ASEAN way, characterized by a preference for a flexible modus operandi based on cau- tious diplomacy, personal ties and informal style, sharply contrasting with the Western legalistic criteria of cooperation. Meanwhile, it is also true that AADMER cannot be fully considered as a departure from ASEAN tradi- tional modalities, as it does not entail any sanctions or punishment in cases of non-compliance. And its added value mostly consists in inducing member states to bring their national legislations in line with the regional agreement, and in creating a solidarity clause, that is, a kind of moral commitment to assist countries in trouble within the ASEAN community.

Given this picture, it can thus be argued that cooperation on disaster management appears to more easily overcome the ASEAN states’ long standing mutual suspicions, and moves it away from its usual processes, which have circumvented any form of institutionalization to endorse ‘problem solving measures involving more coordinated responses, among other things: the sharing of information, the development of certain types of regional surveillance systems for early warning, the provision for relief and assistance in disaster management, rehabilitation and reconstruction, and even more significantly, working towards more coordinated responses’ (Caballero-Anthony 2010: 7)

ASEAN members have also agreed on a common definition of disaster, which ‘means a serious disruption to the functioning of a community or a society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses’ (ASEAN 2005: art. 1.3). They have also converged on a broad under- standing of disaster management, the so-called full-disaster cycle, including activities ‘prior to, during and after the disaster’ (ASEAN 2005: art. 1.4).

In tandem with this political agreement, it is also important to recall, rec- ognizing that - as noted by Adelina Kamal (2012) Head of the ASEAN Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance Division � ‘one of the main lessons to be learned from experience of disasters is the need to be prepared for the unthinkable’ ASEAN members embarked on a wide array of concrete initiatives aimed at adapting ASEAN regional arrange- ments to better face disaster risks and accomplish the Work Programme (2004�2010).6 These are among others:

1. In 2008, a standard operating procedure (SASOP) has been adopted to guide the actions of the parties in the establishment of the ASEAN Standby Arrangements for Disaster Relief and Emergency Response (i.e. the capacities that countries can allocate to support countries affected by disasters); the procedures for the facilitation and utilization of military and civilian assets and capacities; and the methodology for the periodic conduct of simulation exercises.

296 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

2. ASEAN has also activated the ASEAN emergency rapid assessment teams (ERAT) composed of members of national disaster management organizations (NDMOs) to conduct rapid assessments, coordinate with local authorities for the deployment of regional disaster management assets, and provide logistic support to the affected countries. As first mobilized in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis (2008), ERAT has been deployed in several real disaster emergencies such as during the earth- quake, which struck Mandalay and Sagaing, in typhoon Boopha, during the massive floods in Bangkok and typhoon Hayan.

3. Regular emergency simulation exercises, known as ARDEX, have been organized to enhance member countries’ capabilities.

4. Activities have been conducted to build a culture of disaster-resilience such as the three-year program on the ASEAN safe school initiative and the ASEAN day for disaster management supported by civil society organizations, notably the AADMER Partnership Group (APG).

Besides these, the set-up of the ASEAN Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Center) in Jakarta, in 2011, as the operational engine of AADMER is one of the most concrete operational achievements in this area. AHA, which currently focuses only on the components of disaster monitoring and emergency response is tasked with ‘facilitating cooperation and coordination among the parties and with relevant United Nations and international organ- izations’ (ASEAN 2005: art. 20). The Center, with an office in every mem- ber country conducts disaster risk monitoring on a daily basis. Significantly since 2012, it is equipped with a Disaster Monitoring and Response System (DMRS) serving as a key platform for real time, multi-hazard situational awareness and decision-making support; and with a regional stockpile of relief items and capacity building, the so-called ASEAN Disaster Emer- gency Logistics System (DELSA), located in Subang. The main purpose of this system is not to replace the activities carried out by the NDMOs, which have their own disaster monitoring capacities, but to facilitate information sharing between ASEAN members, so that each state is informed of events happening in the region and, can use that information to make decisions on whether to provide assistance, and eventually in what forms, to a disaster- affected country. In other words, the DMRS serves, not simply to track disaster events but more importantly, to log information related to these events into a central system (for e.g. the number of people affected, the local needs, and the assistance that has been requested and/or offered). In so doing, the AHA Center aims to establish itself as the broker of the regional disaster management system, and to ensure the inter-operability between the regional platform and NDMOs’ (Interview no. 2 with High Official at the AHA Center).7

In brief, ASEAN institutional innovations to cope with disaster risk demonstrate a new approach to the problem of natural disasters, which

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 297

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

resulted in important policy and operational outcomes. ASEAN members have indeed not been resistant to institutional reforms and have been dis- posed to adhere to a binding agreement, and to put concrete operational tools on the ground. However, to what degree have humanitarian consider- ations taken precedence in practise over the sacrosanct principles of national sovereignty and non-interference?

Challenges ahead

Beck’s risk society postulates that under the emergence of new risks socie- ties reorganize themselves thus recalibrating their policies and institutions, and giving new salience to the adoption of precautionary mechanisms. As discussed above, the analysis of ASEAN activities has shown that under a disaster risk paradigm ASEAN members have made efforts to retool their institutional framework and formulate common positions, a binding agree- ment and new tools to increase cooperation to try to resolve this multiface- ted dilemma. Of note is that ASEAN documents have emphasized the importance of precautionary principles and of activities aimed at identify- ing mechanisms to prevent and assess disaster risks as well as the mecha- nisms to cope with them in cases of emergency. The real problem, however, is that policy initiatives and institutions risk remaining empty statements and only give the impression of process without progress, if they are not properly implemented.

Illustrating this point, recent ASEAN disasters, have shown that despite growing institutionalization, ASEAN efforts are still hampered by several factors. A primary problem continues to be the mobilization of resources. The length of time taken in the ratification process of AADMER resulted from the difficulty in achieving a compromise on the budget destined for cooperation in this area. The original idea that each country should have contributed an amount of US$100,000 a year, was water-downed especially by smaller and less-developed countries, such as Lao PDR because of insufficient economic resources (Interview with high official of the National Agency for Disaster Management, Indonesia).8 Furthermore, as highlighted by Mathison (as quoted by Booth 2012) the fundamental prob- lem of the big diversity of risk within the region, has created a natural antipathy to risk sharing, particularly in those countries that have a lower perceived risk of catastrophe than others. No wonder therefore, that the ACDM finally agreed that countries will equally contribute the yearly amount of US$30,000. But inevitably, such a limited total yearly budget of US$300,000 renders the development of regional activities mostly depen- dent upon external support from dialogue partners.9 For example, the establishment of DELSA was financed through the Japan-ASEAN Inte- gration Fund (JAIF) in the amount of US$12.2 million, the US supported the ASEAN DMRS, and the EU assists knowledge development in various areas of the ASCC, including DRR, with a budget of 7.3 million euro

298 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

through the ASEAN-EU Dialogue Instrument (READI) Facility. The constitutive value of equality among ASEAN members acts here as an impediment to raising sufficient resources to fund ADDMER activities, given the wide disparity in member incomes (i.e. some members are high income nations, as Brunei and Singapore, upper-middle income such as Malaysia and Thailand, while others such as Cambodia and Myanmar are lower income nations).

A second problem is how to reconcile ASEAN’s new cooperative approach with the traditional security approach of the ASEAN way, cen- tered on the core principle of respect of national sovereignty and non- interference, thus limiting ASEAN in what it can and cannot do. Accord- ing to several officials participating in the AADMER negotiation process it was difficult to convince ASEAN members to ratify the agreement because of national fears of sharing their sensitive data, concerns which are particularly high given the fact that in most ASEAN countries disaster issues are in the hands of the police and military forces. Unsurprisingly therefore, in the case of Cyclone Nargis, ASEAN governments maintained that Myanmar must not be coerced into accepting humanitarian assistance, and rejected the possibility of delivering aid without the junta’s consent (Bellamy and Beeson 2010: 272). Still today a complete and transparent sharing of information is one the most evident challenges for ASEAN. In this regard, despite ACDM’s interest in adopting a system comparable to the European Union Common Emergency Communication and Informa- tion System (CECIS), which facilitates communication and exchange of information and experience between authorities responsible for Civil Pro- tection and Marine Pollution, difficulties in sharing sensitive data still hin- der the establishment of a similar procedure for the exchange of information, particularly with respect to the quality of information flows (Interview no. 1 with High Official at the AHA Center, and Interview with an official of the Crisis Response Unit at Commission’s European Commu- nity Humanitarian Office, ECHO).10

Additionally, the fact that, on the one hand, countries affected by disas- ters often find it difficult to request regional support, and on the other hand, countries offering aid prefer to bypass regional mechanisms of coop- eration and continue to offer ‘help’ via bilateral agreements, further shows a certain reluctance to put into place the very spirit of regional solidarity. For example, during typhoon Hayan, only Malaysia and Brunei used the AHA Center to offer assistance to the Philippines, while Indonesia only worked informally with AHA, and other ASEAN members relied on bilat- eral agreements.

Third, there is the problem of risk assessment. Indeed, many disaster relief agencies are not yet capable of assessing a disaster situation (Boon and Lai 2012). Furthermore, one has to note that the level of capacities of ASEAN members largely differ spanning from the advanced Singapore to Lao PDR and Cambodia, whose respective National Disaster Management

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 299

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

Office and National Committee for disaster management are still in an embryonic stage. Too many limited efforts have also been undertaken at a regional level in the advancement of DRR programs, particularly in the light of climate change adaption mechanisms, growing urbanization and the relatively poor infrastructure of Southeast Asian cities. On this point, although the ACDM has initially tasked the AHA Center with DRR, the components of prevention and mitigation have so far remained beyond the scope of the Center, due to the lack of available resources and capacities. As a result, DRR efforts are mostly carried out by the Member States and their partner agencies at the national level, and unfortunately a truly regional approach and integrated planning for DRR are finding it hard to emerge.11

Fourth, while one cannot ignore that from the Indian Ocean tsunami to typhoon Hayan, ASEAN has equipped itself with new tools; its relief capacities are still inadequate. During Typhoon Hayan, the AHA Center based in Jakarta, deployed logistical personnel to Manila and Tacloban to share its assessment with ASEAN member states, and coordinate relief efforts with national authorities. However, comments attributed to the Thai and Indonesian foreign ministers at a joint press conference in Bang- kok on November 14, 2013 suggested some frustration was felt that ASEAN’s response had materialized more slowly than assistance from Britain and the USA (Graham 2013). The scarcity of staff, the lack of com- mon technical standards, low inter-operable resources and situational awareness and even difficulties in language communication further add to the perceived weakness of deployed teams.

Finally, but no less importantly knowledge of regional institutions and operational mechanisms has to be better diffused at national state levels. Collaboration between national and regional authorities in the various aspects of disaster management requires in the long run greater familiari- zation with AADMER and AHA tools, in order to avoid an incompatible response and to aid in the development of synergic partnerships.

Conclusion

Modernity rather than creating a world less prone to risks is triggering to what Beck has defined as a ‘world risk society’. In this society, even natural hazards are less random, more frequent and severe, and regulations based on national borders become increasingly impotent to deal with disasters appropriately. Cooperation is thus crucial for risk management, to provide for effective preparation and response at an operational level.

In the course of the last decade, Southeast Asia has experienced an ample dose of catastrophic natural disasters, which rendered the problem particularly urgent and led to political attention at the highest levels, giving new impetus to the development of cooperative measures in the region. Particularly, ASEAN heads of state and governments and the

300 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

representatives of NDMOs have emphasized the importance of precau- tionary principles and have initiated efforts to define agreements and mechanisms aimed at identifying, monitoring and preventing disaster risks, as well as the mechanisms to face them in emergency situations. Accord- ingly, the ASEAN approach of dealing with disaster management has become not just a way of responding to disastrous events when they occur but also making communities more resilient in the future (Collins 2013: 131).

Using Beck’s words, the adoption of these measures seems to corre- spond to a process of reflexivity, which lays behind the reorganization of ASEAN in an attempt to prepare itself for possible harmful consequences deriving from disaster-related events in the future. Then, as is argued by the former ASEAN Secretary General Pitsuwan, ‘if the risk of disasters is not addressed, ASEAN’s efforts to boost Southeast Asian economies, enhance their competitiveness, and make the region attractive to investors would be endangered’ (Pitsuwan 2010).

Yet despite these efforts, it is obvious that Beck’s postulation concerning the replacement of nation-state traditional societies with post-traditional cooperative societies has yet to be fulfilled. The fact that ASEAN as a regional bloc operates mostly as a club of national governments means that ASEAN as an institution has limited power in what it can and cannot do. Meanwhile, regional cooperation is often hampered by national gov- ernments fearing to lose control of relief operations and hesitating to share sensitive data with their partners, which frustrate the development of a community approach. Nonetheless, one cannot underestimate the way in which ASEAN members have defined precise targets and measures, which illustrates that disaster management is a promising area, going beyond a mere declaration of good intentions. The joint instruments adopted also reveal that despite the above-mentioned obstacles the compelling need to respond to humanitarian disasters can, to some degree, prevail over con- cerns about national sovereignty (Caballero-Anthony 2009) and allow in turn, for a more flexible understanding of non-interference. This is the hope for the future.

Acknowledgment

I wish to thank the officials at the ASEAN Secretariat, AHA Center and NDMOs of ASEAN members, who have agreed to be interviewed in Jakarta in February 2014 as those interviewed asked for confidentiality, their names will not be mentioned. I finally wish to thank Irene Le Herissier for editing assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 301

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

Notes

1. According to the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) an event is consid- ered to be a disaster if at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled: ‘10 or more people reported killed; 100 people reported affected, declaration of a state of emergency, or an appeal for international assistance’. Countries included are as follows: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Viet Nam.

2. Interview with High Official of the National Agency For Disaster Management (BNPB), Indonesia, 25 February 2014, Jakarta.

3. Interview with High Official at the ASEAN Secretariat, 20 February 2014, Jakarta.

4. These actions include: enhance joint effective and early response at the politi- cal and operational levels in activating the ASEAN disaster management arrangements to assist affected countries in the event of major disasters; enhance civilian�military coordination in providing effective and timely response to major natural disasters; finalize the SOP for Regional Standby Arrangements and Coordination of Joint Disaster Relief and Emergency Response Operations for establishing joint operations in providing relief aid to disaster affected areas of Member States in line with the AADMER; work towards an effective interface on disaster management between ASEAN and other ASEAN-related bodies such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), ASEAN Plus Three and East Asia Summit (EAS) in a manner that will enhance ASEAN’s disaster management capacities; and develop ARF strategic guidelines for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief cooperation.

5. Interview no. 2 with High Official at the AHA Center, 20 February 2014, Jakarta.

6. Following the 16th Meeting of the ACDM in May, 2010 in Makari, the Philip- pines, the ACDM launched the AADMER Work Programme (2010�2015) and announced 14 flagship projects in the areas of: preparedness and response; risk assessment, early warning and monitoring; prevention and mitigation; recovery; outreach and mainstreaming; training and knowledge management systems.

7. Interview no. 2 with High Official at the AHA Center, 20 February 2014, Jakarta.

8. Interview with High Official of the National Agency For Disaster Management (BNPB), Indonesia, 25 February 2014, Jakarta.

9. The ASEAN budget is integrated by the AADMER Fund that welcomes vol- untary contributions from member states and external parties.

10. Interview no.1 with High Official at the AHA Center, 20 February 2014, Jakarta; and Telephone Interview with an official of the Crisis Response Unit at ECHO, 4 June 2013.

11. Apart from the initiatives aimed at increasing public awareness on disaster risk, such as the three-year program on the ASEAN Safe School Initiative, and the annual commemoration of the ASEAN Day for Disaster Management, the only initiative carried out at a regional level in the area of DRR is the Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance Roadmap, which has been adopted in November 2011, financed by the World Bank and the UNISDR.

References

Acharya, A. (2009) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia. ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order, New York, NY: Routledge.

302 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

Alles, D. (2012) ‘Depoliticizing natural disasters to enhance human security in a sovereignty-based context: Lessons from Aceh (2004) to Yangon (2008)’, in B. T. Chen Guan (ed.) Human Security: Securing East Asia’s Future, Heidel- berg: Springer.

ASEAN (1976) Declaration of ASEAN Concord I, Bali, Indonesia, 24 February. ASEAN (2003) Declaration of ASEAN Concord II, Bali, Indonesia, 7 October. ASEAN (2005) ASEAN Agreement on disaster management and emergency

response, Vientiane, Laos, 26 July. ASEAN (2009a) ASEAN Political Security Blueprint, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN (2009b) ASEAN Socio Cultural Blueprint, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN (2012) ‘Bali Declaration on ASEAN Community in a Global Community

of Nations.’ Bali Concord III, Bali, Indonesia, 17 November. ASEAN (2013) ASEAN Declaration on Enhancing Cooperation in Disaster Man-

agement, Bandar Seri Begawan, 10 October. Attin�a, F. (2012) The Politics and Policies of Relief, Aid and Reconstruction. Con-

trasting approaches to disasters and emergencies, Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Beck, U. (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frank- furt: Suhr-karnp Verlag.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage. Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity. Beck, U. (2002) ‘The terrorist threat: world risk society revisited’, Theory, Culture

Society 19 (4): 39�45. Beck, U. (2006) ‘Living in the world risk society’, Economy and Society 35(3):

329�45. Beck, U. (2009) ‘World Risk Society and Manufactured Uncertainties’, IRIS 1(2):

291�9. Beck, U. and Holzer, B. (2007) ‘Organization in World Risk Society’, in C. Pearson,

C. Roux-Dufort and J. Clair (eds) The International Handbook of Organiza- tional Crisis Management, London: Sage, pp. 3�24.

Bellamy, A. and Beeson, M. (2010) ‘The responsibility to protect in Southeast Asia: Can ASEAN reconcile humanitarianism and sovereignty’, Asian Security 6 (3): 262�79.

Boin, A. and Ekengren, M. (2009) ‘Preparing for the world risk society: Towards a New European Security Paradigm for the European Union’, Journal of Con- tingencies and Crises Management, 17(4): 285�94.

Boin, A., Ekengren, M. and Rhinard, M. (2013) The European Union as a Crisis Manager, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boon, T. T. and Lai, A. (2012) ‘Disaster management in Southeast Asia: Issues and challenges’, International Policy Digest, May 15.

Booth, G. (2012) ‘The ASEAN catastrophe risk pool conundrum’, Reactions, July. Buzan, B., Waever, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998) Security: A new Framework of Anal-

ysis, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Caballero-Anthony, M. (1998) ‘Mechanisms of dispute settlement: The ASEAN

experience’, Contemporary Southeast Asia 20(1): 38�66. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2008) ‘Non traditional security and infectious diseases in

ASEAN-going beyond the rhetoric of securitization to deeper institutionalization’ The Pacific Review 21 (4): 509�27.

Caballero-Anthony, M. (2009) ‘Cyclones and humanitarian crises: Pushing the lim- its of R2P in Southeast Asia’, Global Responsibility to Protect 1 (2): 135�55.

Caballero-Anthony, M. (2010) ‘Non-Traditional security challenges, regional gover- nance and the ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC)’, Asia Security

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 303

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

Initiative Policy Series Working Paper No.7, 1 September; accessed at http:// sea.cass.cn/upload/2012/07/d20120731164258572.pdf, 26 February 2015.

Caballero-Anthony, M. (2012) ‘The Responsibility to Protect in Southeast Asia: Opening Up Spaces for Advancing Human Security’, The Pacific Review 25 (1): 113�34.

Caballero-Anthony, M., Emmers, R. and Acharya, A. (2006) Non Traditional Secu- rity in Asia: Dilemmas in Securitization, London: Ashgate.

Collins, A. (2013) Building a People-oriented Security Community: The ASEAN Way, Abingdon: Routledge.

Corry, O. (2012) ‘Securitization and “Riskification”: Second-order security and the politics of climate change’, Millennium-Journal of International Studies 40(2): 235�58.

Ekberg, M. (2007) ‘The parameters of the risk society: A review and exploration’, Current Sociology 55 (3): 343�66.

Elliot, L. and Caballero-Anthony, M. (2013) Human Security and Climate Change in Southeast Asia. Managing Risk and Resilience, Abingdon: Routledge.

Emmers, R. (2003) ‘ASEAN and the securitization of transnational crime in South- east Asia’, The Pacific Review 16 (3): 419�38.

Ferris, E. and Petz, D. (2012) The Year that Shook the Rich: A Review of Natural Disasters in 2011, Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, London School of Economics.

Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F. and Dahe, Q. (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to advance Climate Change Adaptation. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Giddens, A. (1998) ‘Risk society: The context of British politics’, in J. Franklin (ed.) The Politics of Risk Society Order, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Graham, E. (2013) ‘ASEAN risks missing its “Katrina moment”’, The Straits Times, 19 November.

Guilloux, A. (2009) ‘Regional governance and disaster response’, in N. Thomas (ed.) Governance and Regionalism in Asia, London: Routledge.

IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contri- bution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kamal, A. (2012) ‘Learning from Past Experiences’, Paper Presentation on Main- streaming Resilience in a Complex, Networked World, 13 February.

Letchumanan, R. (2010) Is there an ASEAN policy on climate change? accessed at http://www2.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SR004/ASEC.pdf, 26 February 2015.

Narine, S. (2002) Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia, Boulder: Lynnie Rienner Publishers.

Narine, S. (2008) ‘Forty years of ASEAN: a historical review’, The Pacific Review 21(4): 411�29.

Nesadurai, H. (2009) ‘ASEAN and regional governance after the Cold War: from regional order to regional Community’ The Pacific Review, 22(1): 91�118.

Parthasarathy, D. (2013) ‘Risk vulnerabily and resilience. Climate change and the urban poor in Asia’, in L. Elliot and M. Caballero-Anthony (eds) Human Security and Climate Change in Southeast Asia. Managing Risk and Resil- ience, Abingdon: Routledge.

Pitsuwan, S. (2010) ‘Message from the Secretary-General of ASEAN on the occa- sion of the 2011 ASEAN day for disaster management and international day

304 The Pacific Review

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18

for disaster reduction’, Speeches and Statements of the Secretary General of ASEAN Print, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.

See Seng, T. (2011) ‘Providers Not Protectors: Institutionalizing Responsible Sover- eignty in Southeast Asia’, Asian Security 7(1): 201�17.

Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2012) Manag- ing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance, Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Sukma, R. (2010) ASEAN and Non traditional Security, Tokyo, 3 December. Sukma, R. (2012) ‘The ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC): Opportuni-

ties and constraints for the R2P in Southeast Asia’, The Pacific Review 25(1): 135�52.

The World Bank (2012) ASEAN Advancing Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance in ASEAN Member States: Frameworks and Options for Implementation, Washington: The World Bank.

UNISDR (2009) UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva: UNISDR.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2011) Global Report on Human Settlements: Cities and Climate Change, London: Earthscan.

Wulan, A. and Bandoro, B. (2007) ASEAN’s Quest for a Full-Fledged Community, Jakarta: Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Xinhua (2009) ‘ASEAN Agreement on disaster management comes into force’, December 24.

Xinhua (2013) ASEAN prioritizes disaster management, emergency response’, 5 May. Zhaung, J., Suphachalasai, S. and Samson, J. N. (2013) ‘The economics of climate

change’ in L. Elliot and M. Caballero-Anthony (eds) Human Security and Climate Change in Southeast Asia. Managing Risk and Resilience, Abingdon: Routledge.

A.P. di Floristella: Dealing with Natural Disasters 305

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C it

y U

ni ve

rs it

y of

H on

g K

on g

L ib

ra ry

] at

1 8:

26 1

0 Ja

nu ar

y 20

18