Disasters, resilience, and the ASEAN integration

T he recent havoc caused by typhoon Haiyan in central Philippines provides an example of the grim reality of the impact of disasters in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) region. This is personal to me as many of my relatives and friends died and many more had their properties all washed away. You see, I was born in Tacloban and grew up in the city. It pained me to see my 87-year-old grandmother, a veteran of many typhoons, struggling to survive amid the stench of death and destruction. No doubt, the President of the Philippines was prompted to echo the need to strengthen the framework of cooperation in managing disasters among the ASEAN countries, being one of the best approaches to address urgent issues and to build resilience. Needless to say, many efforts have already been initiated and continued in reducing the vulnerability of the region to the risk of disasters in the context of sustainable development. This includes the establishment of the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM) in 2003, which the ASEAN body elevated to a full-fledged committee. The ASEAN also promulgated the Agreement on Disaster Management and Response (AADMER) which is a legal instrument that binds all member countries in promoting regional cooperation and collaboration so as to lessen disaster losses and having a joint emergency response to disasters. This document is a manifestation of the commitment of the ASEAN to the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 2015 supported by 168 countries (1). Many observers, including the Secretary-General of the ASEAN, believe that the tipping point in the vigorous supranational policy approach on disaster management was instigated by the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster in 2004. The scale of the devastation of the tsunami was so massive that people, not only from the region, but even those from beyond, realized that disasters are realities that could strike anytime, anywhere. ASEAN’s rhetoric was hinged on six Rs reduce disaster risks, rebound quickly, reinvigorate leadership, renovate the plan, respond better, and revive the ASEAN’s sense of community. Many of these narratives have been echoed time and time again. This echo gets louder as disaster strikes. What is thought provoking in this rhetoric is the idea of constant reflection; thus, the key terms ‘renovate’, ‘reinvigorate’, ‘better response’, and ‘revive’. If there is a constant need for changing interventions and approaches, does this mean that previous actions have remained insufficient? This is probably the main impetus to push the discussions in the ASEAN and go beyond the level of consensus building and move vigorously away from rhetoric and pronouncements. As urgent actions are required in disasters, readily available resources and decisions should be at the disposal at the supranational level. This beckons for the need to have a strong coordinating body that can easily deploy immediate interventions at any geographical location. A substantial amount of relief fund should be readily available for immediate disposal and disbursement anywhere. This would wean away the region from too much reliance on donors that normally arrive after the critical period of search and rescue phase and comes in with their own philosophies and approaches. A cooperative framework would definitely benefit the countries that need most help, which apparently are the countries most affected by disasters. A good framework is also imperative for a regional relief fund to make it substantially sufficient to be significant in delivering impact. A supranational framework and body would, however, face many challenges, as ASEAN countries are diverse in Global Health Action