Background Summary

Ezekiel originally worked in the military and construction industry, but over the past ten years he has moved across to the development sector.  This has included a two year stint in Timor-Leste; community-based social work back in a major Australian city; and then as a Project Officer for a medium sized Australian NGO.  In this latter position he has mainly worked as the NGO inter-face with partners in Asian-Pacific countries, these being as diverse as Papuan New Guinea, Vanuatu, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, and Myanmar/Burma.  Disaster Risk Management (DRM) has been a sizeable part of his portfolio, and he extensively supported his NGO partners DRM initiatives, particularly in Indonesia (the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami; the 2009 Yogyakarta earthquake; and the 2010 Mentawi Islands tsunami) and Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar/Burma.  

Question 1

You have lived in Timor-Leste, and travelled and worked extensively throughout the Asia-Pacific region.  You have also been involved, and supported partners, in major disasters such as the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami (particularly in Indonesia), and the 2008 Myanmar/Burma Cyclone.  Could you compare and contrast the national and international responses to these two major disasters? 

The Boxing Day tsunami, which also had some impact in Burma, was very different to the Cyclone Nargis response in terms of access and public interest. The international response to the Boxing Day tsunami was fast and broad in terms of the donor base and the NGOs responding. Access into the affected regions of Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka was relatively straight forward.  In comparison, access into Burma/Myanmar following Cyclone Nargis was greatly frustrating. The UN was even on the point of considering how it could invoke the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) mandate, as the Government of Myanmar blocked meaningful international response for a number of weeks. Eventually access to the affected areas was given (largely due leverage from agencies already with some operations in Myanmar pre-disaster), but it continued to be tightly controlled for months after, by such bureaucratic obstacles such as visa approvals and travel permits to the delta region.

The lack of access and reliable information combined with suspicion from the Government of Myanmar, curtailed much of the potential funding from private and corporate donors. Finding safe routes for getting funds to the projects for the affected population became almost an obsession for many international NGOs, some of these finding creative, pragmatic ways of assisting the affected population, in spite of the government intransigence.

Whilst the scale and impact of these disasters was comparable, one (Cyclone Nargis) was relatively localised, whilst the other affected a number of countries across the SE Asian region. The shared suffering by a number of these countries combined with good access to up-to-date information certainly assisted the international response and resourcing of the Boxing Day tsunami.  Indeed the overall response to this, whilst not without its own challenges, was vastly more effective than what took place in Myanmar.

Question 2

You’ve supported Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) initiatives, particularly at community level (through so-called Community Based Disaster Risk Management = CBDRM).  What are the practical challenges of developing effective DRR/CBDRM initiatives throughout the Asian-Pacific region?

The hazards of the Asia Pacific nations are so vast that it is hard to name a hazard that is not present in many marginalised communities which are often living in the most naturally vulnerable parts of the region.  DRR initiatives have been part of our approach in the last few years, with implementing partners in the region. One challenge is to educate and convince donors of the need to support pre- disaster initiatives, as well as disaster response and recovery projects. There is a good argument for doing so, in terms of ‘bang for buck’ of the donor funds, but continued education is needed. Emotional response to emergencies tends to see an over-supply of response funds, and correspondingly under-supply of pre and post disaster initiatives. Donor agencies need to continue to respond to this challenge through a dialogue with donors.

On the implementation side, partners have needed to be encouraged to think long term, and work with communities to develop small scale DRR initiatives that significantly reduce the risk of a hazard becoming a full blown disaster. Small grants for this purpose, and education on DRR and its importance, have resulted in a shift in partner and community understanding of the importance of preparedness and mitigation. Some partners are now integrating DRR components into general community development projects in areas understood to be at risk of natural disasters.

Question 3

Over the past few years you have added a second Masters to your educational qualifications, that of Master of Rights Law and Policy.  You also appear to be a strong advocate of rights-based development.  Within the humanitarian sector, what do you see as the key elements of a rights-based DRM response?

I am not aware of much writing or thought on this topic. A human rights approach to development places emphases on transparency, participation and realisation of human rights as a program outcome. It informs the process, as much as the outcome from the process, of working with communities. It also calls for strong advocacy, both by local communities and on behalf of local communities where appropriate, so that those who have a responsibility to vulnerable people actually recognise and act on that.

The approach of ‘Participatory Assessment of Disaster Risk (PADR)’ as developed by Tearfund is an example of high participation, and local level driven risk reduction. Also, any initiative that pushes for Government DRM responses from the national down to the local level, should ideally be consistent with a Rights Based Approach (RBA) to Development.  This is because the Government has a duty to protect and take measures to ensure its citizens rights are respected, protected and fulfilled in the areas related to climatic events and their impact of communities.  Although difficult to hold governments accountable, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), along with the Declaration on the Right to Development, would be key international treaties to be considered in this field. 

One of the pressing and obvious regional issues where DRM and RBA to Development intersect is ‘climate induced migration’. A good deal of work has been done on this area recently by Jane McAdam and others, but it is definitely something that is very topical and of concern to development and humanitarian workers. The impact of climate change on the Pacific Island nations, and on the great delta regions of South and SE Asia, is a major source of concern.  The potential for climate-induced migration from these areas is significant, even if one goes by very conservative estimates. That being said, mitigation and DRR initiatives that empower communities to live safely in traditional homelands,  is one area highlighted, where much can be learned and shared by practitioners and researchers from the humanitarian and Human Rights sectors.