Launching a Global Resilience Initiative in Asia: Case of Pandemic Influenza

Background Paper Prepared by Mika Shimizu and Allen Clark East-West Center Draft 1) Issue/Introduction Traditional case-by-case post-disaster response based disaster management no longer suffices to deal with emerging complex disaster risks the world faces today. The influence of globalization, urbanization and climate change has dramatically changed the scope, severity and impact of many modern day disasters. Specifically, globalization has changed the nature of disaster management and associated public policy, by making both areas more complex, uncertain and difficult to address at the national and global levels. This structural change, largely overlooked by policy and disaster management communities, necessitates a transition from traditional disaster management to a Global Disaster Risk Management (GDRM) approach. The GDRM approach incorporates and focuses on the development of “resilience”(as discussed later) through a better understanding of the impact of the above global changes on policy and disaster management, and pre-disaster (ahead of the event) risk preparedness and management. The “Global Resilience Initiative in Asia (GRIA)” is being initiated to address the existing deficiency of the lack of a GDRM approach in the disaster management regime of Asia. The goals of the GRIA are (1) the promotion and adoption of the GDRM approach within Asia and (2) the development of an integrated framework and roadmap for incorporating “resilience” in disaster risk management in Asia. The workshop on Launching a Global Resilience Initiative in Asia: Case of Pandemic Influenza is the first project under the GRIA. The workshop” (see “Workshop Overview”) is structured for policy oriented discussions focusing on a case study of pandemic influenza. Pandemic influenza was chosen as it is emblematic of the type of emerging global disaster risks that urgently requires the GDRM approach and the development of “resilience.” 2. Global Disaster Risk Management Approach and “Resilience” As noted, the GDRM approach focuses on understanding and addressing the uncertainties in natural disasters that have, or may have, global impacts. In the case of influenza, the World Health Organization (WHO) can declare a “pandemic” based on scientific analysis of the influenza virus and how it spreads. However, it is careful to note that it is not able to 1) predict with certainty who may be severely affected, 2) when and how the nature of virus might transform, or 3) what kinds of associated disasters may occur. These unanswered questions of who, when, and what are critical information for policy makers and disaster managers. The lack of clear answers to who, what and when contribute greatly to the uncertainty in policy and decision making and in overall disaster risk management. Further complicating the situation are the issues of risk linkages/compounding and risk interdependencies: • Risk linkages/compounding - It is rare that a risk exists independently from other risks e.g. in the case of pandemic influenza public health risks are compounded by the associated issues of climate change, urbanization, and large-scale migration; all of which may contribute to the spread of new type of infectious diseases. • Risk Interdependencies - The interdependency of physical infrastructure (such as telecommunications and power services) and the delivery of economic and social services is often a critical area of uncertainty in disaster risk management (Hurricane Katrina). In the case of pandemic influenza, although it does not damage the physical infrastructure per se, its impact on the work force that maintains the physical infrastructure, and hence its operation during a crises, may be severely compromised. Given the above complex uncertainties, it is extremely difficult to accurately predict either the physical or socio-economic impacts of disaster risks: this necessitates that focus be placed on how to best manage emerging global disaster risks such as pandemic influenza. The development of the GDRM, focusing on pre-disaster risk management, adaptation and the development of resilience, is arguably the best approach. While “resilience” has recently received considerable attention in disaster risk management, few national, regional or international institutions have provided guidance as to what constitutes “resilience” and how to implement it. For example, the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) 2005-2015 by the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) emphasizes “resilience,” yet presents no concrete approaches on how resilience should be addressed. Critical general components of developing “resilience” in disaster risk management are flexibility, consistency and the incorporation of “lessons learned” from other disasters/countries to other disaster risk management beyond national boundaries. Specific components include, but are not limited to: 1) renewing actionable policies based on policy analysis and evaluation 2) incorporating multi-stakeholders, including civil society organizations, into disaster risk management 3) installing mechanisms to absorb the new lessons from different disaster experiences. Although a number of nations have begun to incorporate the principles of resilience into disaster management, the actual development of resilience poses a tremendous challenge, even for the developed countries, as demonstrated in the recent 2005 Katrina experience in the U.S and the 2009 H1N1influenza outbreak. 3. Resilience in Disaster Risk Management and Regional Governance Given the above challenges, resilience in disaster risk management requires a global approach that addresses not only domestic policy operations, but also incorporates policies and actions among domestic (local/national) governments and international and regional organizations. This is particularly important in Asia where there is a large “policy vacuum” in concerted efforts among the above groups. Considerable international and regional cooperation in disaster risk management already exists. However, more extensive and focused cooperation is required to address the previously discussed uncertainties, to produce actionable, effective and operational disaster management policies, and to create resilience as a foundation for GDRM. The integration of the collective knowledge and experiences, beyond traditional national and international boundaries in Asia, is clearly the path forward and the therefore the focus of GRIA. 4. Project Scope and Objectives The GRIA recognizes that addressing the unprecedented challenges of developing a GDRM approach, with resilience as its foundation, requires complex interactions with innovative approaches. Therefore, the GRIA focuses on 1) a systemic integration of knowledge and experiences, related to resilience to complex disaster risks, and 2) case studies for the development of a “roadmap to resilience” for Asia nations and globally. To initiate this project the present workshop focuses on a case study of pandemic influenza to; (a) identify the scope and magnitude of resilience challenge; (b) define the key policy relevant feature of resiliency and (c) to link these inputs into the “next steps” toward achieving the overall project objective of knowledge development. Specific policy relevant discussions will focus on the following: (1) How is “resilience” defined and interpreted in the policy community? • How are the understandings, concepts or principles integrated into policy formation process in the pandemic influenza? (2) How is the resilience concept reflected in national policies of pandemic influenza? • What are the key characteristics of resilience? • How are the policies structured and implemented? (3) What are lessons from the past experiences regarding pandemic influenza (H1N1; H5N1) with respect to issues of resilience? • How can the above lessons be linked to the better preparedness for pandemic influenza in Asia? • Can the above lessons be applied to managing other types of disaster risks or global disaster risk management? (4) What are good practices for the implementation of resilience in disaster risk management? • What were the “resilience related” good practices in the 2009 H1N1 case, or other cases including H5N1) at local or national levels? • How can technology play a role in implementing resilience in pandemic influenza? • How can the above practices be linked to the better preparedness for pandemic influenza in Asia or for managing other types of disaster risks or global disaster risk management? Outcome The essence of the discussion in the workshop will be laid out in the form of a policy brief focusing on policy implication, which will be shared among the policy community in Asia. Based on the results, the project will be linked to next steps shown in the below. Next steps The project will be expanded to incorporate different case studies and additional provide roadmaps for implementing the resilience with in Asian countries through: i) Reviewing other case studies of global disaster risks ii) Setting up “Task Force on Global Resilience Initiative in Asia” for continuous knowledge management on the implementing of resilience iii) Implementing policy evaluation, analysis and discussion with respect to global disaster risk management in Asia iv) Identifying the gaps between the current state implementation of resilience in disaster risk management in Asia based on i) , ii), and iii) v) Designing additional Framework and Roadmap based on results of iv).