• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • Disaster Management in Southeast Asia: 20 Years of Progress and Challenges
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO23028 | Disaster Management in Southeast Asia: 20 Years of Progress and Challenges
    Mely Caballero-Anthony, Alistair D. B. Cook, Jonatan Anderias Lassa

    02 March 2023

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    SYNOPSIS

    The management of consequences arising from natural hazards in Southeast Asia has seen laudable advancement in the last 20 years. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has played a positive role in this progress. However, there is emerging disaster policy inertia that reflect local realities at the ASEAN and global levels.

    CO23028 Disaster Management in Southeast Asia 20 Years of Progress and Challenges
    Source: Wikimedia

    COMMENTARY

    Among both proponents and critics, there is a shared perception and narrative that disaster risk reduction policy reform in ASEAN has been fruitful, marked by the steady development of the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM) since 2003 that laid the foundation for the legally binding ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) in 2009. AADMER led to the establishment of the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre) in 2011.

    Since then, the AHA Centre has been instrumental in ASEAN disaster relief and humanitarian operations. It has built upon ASEAN’s pivotal role during the response to Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008. It has since repeatedly proven its legitimacy to the member states, as exemplified during the Central Sulawesi earthquakes in 2018. ASEAN international partners, including bilateral and multilateral institutions, have supported the ASEAN disaster management systems and mechanisms; illustrating an important avenue for cooperation between countries in the region and the international community.

    Since 2008, ASEAN mechanisms have been consistently facilitating and catalysing significant regional initiatives and policy changes leading to the “nationally-led, regionally-supported and international-as-necessary” mantra often heard in disaster management and emergency response dialogues. The five-year work plan serves as a platform for the ACDM to operate in a shared and collaborative manner.

    At the regional and diplomatic levels, ‘everything’ seems to be working and moving in the right direction towards implementing ASEAN disaster management commitments that have been strategically aligned with global agendas such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there is a perception in some quarters that despite active engagement in global platforms and participation in the discourses and policies of international organisations and dialogue partners, there is less focus on reflecting local needs and voices.

    Institutional Inertia?

    Notwithstanding ASEAN’s achievements in disaster management to date, there are significant challenges to maintaining the momentum built over the past twenty years. We have observed that policy developments at the regional level and the sustainable development needs and policy impact at the local level are diverging. The ASEAN Secretariat and AHA Centre appear frustrated at the lack of progress at the national and sub-national levels. This begs the question how ASEAN can provide global leadership when there is a lack of progress at these levels.

    At global meetings and in their contributions to global initiatives, the ASEAN Secretariat and AHA Centre have collaborated with other entities and adopted much of the terminology and terms of reference. Such collaboration is necessary for a multi-stakeholder environment, but it needs to be carefully calibrated with its home constituencies. In the case of disaster management, this means that efforts need to be focused on the local level.

    Over the past two decades, ASEAN’s disaster management community has shown significant progress in terms of garnering policy priority within the regional organisation. ASEAN provides strong capacity building programmes to help member states advance disaster management as an important policy agenda but its local impact has plateaued.

    It is becoming more apparent that trends are in reverse in the regional disaster management landscape in terms of achieving measurable goals. Regional meetings have received criticism similar to that of other sectors in ASEAN, where these meetings are seen as an end in themselves and implementation of their outcomes is at best sporadic.

    Recent formal reports such as the Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2022, shows that across nearly all indicators, the region is regressing in terms of its 2030 targets. A report on Indonesia at the Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Bali in May 2022 showed that 6 out of 7 indicators demonstrating progress to achieve the Sendai Framework goals by 2030 are likely to fall short. Countries in the region often regarded as disaster risk reduction champions can lose legitimacy among their peers in the global community if this trend continues.

    Policy developments and pronouncements need to reconnect with the local community in ASEAN. One crucial component of this is the engagement of the university research sector at the local level. Strong relationships should be built with these institutions of higher learning to help them become not only repositories of local knowledge of disaster management, but also to inform and develop locally-led disaster management policy that shapes regional efforts within and outside the region to fully realise the original aims under the motto “One ASEAN One Response”.

    It was not for regional entities to become dominated by global norms shaped by more powerful entities, but for them to contribute regional perspectives to inform the global dialogue, particularly in a policy realm where the grounds for multi-stakeholder cooperation are fertile.

    While it is inevitable that socialisation and power politics occur within the global context, there is a need for this conversation to be heard, and to articulate the priorities of the people. This will generate much-needed momentum within the region to address disaster risk, build a more disaster-resilient society, and achieve the 2030 goals on time. This experience will even provide the global community with evidence-based policies to shape broader disaster policy conversations.

    Revitalising Disaster Policy: An Important Agenda for ASEAN Towards 2043

    At present, there is a lack of initiatives reflecting local realities to sustain and elevate disaster management policy to meet the challenges of today and those we will face in the next 20 years. The region faces two fundamental challenges that need to be addressed: (1) failure to meet Sendai Framework indicators and regression even by 2030; and (2) the loss of strong leadership that drives action, engages personnel, and provides direction in the coming years.

    There is a very real possibility that ASEAN would not meet the Sendai targets by 2030. This prospect is not simply because of the COVID-19 legacy of the past three years but signals the divergence between local needs and policy action at ASEAN level. When measured by tangible outcomes at the societal level, including the ground-level real-risk trajectory, data suggests that the real risks should concern many players and stakeholders. For example, one small earthquake event can be disastrous, as shown recently in Cianjur, Indonesia.

    We note that progress achieved in ASEAN disaster management policy has become weak. There are thousands of preventable hazards turning into disasters in the region. Furthermore, there is a lack of systematic evidence to show that sustainable recovery to avert future disasters, as promoted by the ‘build-back better’ framework, is underway. If the dual challenges of regressing on the 2030 targets and the loss of leadership are not tackled, then the progress achieved over the past twenty years will not be sustained for the next twenty.

    About the Authors

    Mely Caballero-Anthony is Professor of International Relations. She is also Head of the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre) at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Alistair D. B. Cook is Coordinator of the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Programme and Senior Fellow at the NTS Centre. Jonatan Lassa is Senior Lecturer, Emergency & Disaster Management, Faculty of Arts and Society, Charles Darwin University, Australia.

    Categories: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / Non-Traditional Security / East Asia and Asia Pacific / Global / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN

    Last updated on 02/03/2023

    comments powered by Disqus
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    SYNOPSIS

    The management of consequences arising from natural hazards in Southeast Asia has seen laudable advancement in the last 20 years. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has played a positive role in this progress. However, there is emerging disaster policy inertia that reflect local realities at the ASEAN and global levels.

    CO23028 Disaster Management in Southeast Asia 20 Years of Progress and Challenges
    Source: Wikimedia

    COMMENTARY

    Among both proponents and critics, there is a shared perception and narrative that disaster risk reduction policy reform in ASEAN has been fruitful, marked by the steady development of the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM) since 2003 that laid the foundation for the legally binding ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) in 2009. AADMER led to the establishment of the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre) in 2011.

    Since then, the AHA Centre has been instrumental in ASEAN disaster relief and humanitarian operations. It has built upon ASEAN’s pivotal role during the response to Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008. It has since repeatedly proven its legitimacy to the member states, as exemplified during the Central Sulawesi earthquakes in 2018. ASEAN international partners, including bilateral and multilateral institutions, have supported the ASEAN disaster management systems and mechanisms; illustrating an important avenue for cooperation between countries in the region and the international community.

    Since 2008, ASEAN mechanisms have been consistently facilitating and catalysing significant regional initiatives and policy changes leading to the “nationally-led, regionally-supported and international-as-necessary” mantra often heard in disaster management and emergency response dialogues. The five-year work plan serves as a platform for the ACDM to operate in a shared and collaborative manner.

    At the regional and diplomatic levels, ‘everything’ seems to be working and moving in the right direction towards implementing ASEAN disaster management commitments that have been strategically aligned with global agendas such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there is a perception in some quarters that despite active engagement in global platforms and participation in the discourses and policies of international organisations and dialogue partners, there is less focus on reflecting local needs and voices.

    Institutional Inertia?

    Notwithstanding ASEAN’s achievements in disaster management to date, there are significant challenges to maintaining the momentum built over the past twenty years. We have observed that policy developments at the regional level and the sustainable development needs and policy impact at the local level are diverging. The ASEAN Secretariat and AHA Centre appear frustrated at the lack of progress at the national and sub-national levels. This begs the question how ASEAN can provide global leadership when there is a lack of progress at these levels.

    At global meetings and in their contributions to global initiatives, the ASEAN Secretariat and AHA Centre have collaborated with other entities and adopted much of the terminology and terms of reference. Such collaboration is necessary for a multi-stakeholder environment, but it needs to be carefully calibrated with its home constituencies. In the case of disaster management, this means that efforts need to be focused on the local level.

    Over the past two decades, ASEAN’s disaster management community has shown significant progress in terms of garnering policy priority within the regional organisation. ASEAN provides strong capacity building programmes to help member states advance disaster management as an important policy agenda but its local impact has plateaued.

    It is becoming more apparent that trends are in reverse in the regional disaster management landscape in terms of achieving measurable goals. Regional meetings have received criticism similar to that of other sectors in ASEAN, where these meetings are seen as an end in themselves and implementation of their outcomes is at best sporadic.

    Recent formal reports such as the Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2022, shows that across nearly all indicators, the region is regressing in terms of its 2030 targets. A report on Indonesia at the Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Bali in May 2022 showed that 6 out of 7 indicators demonstrating progress to achieve the Sendai Framework goals by 2030 are likely to fall short. Countries in the region often regarded as disaster risk reduction champions can lose legitimacy among their peers in the global community if this trend continues.

    Policy developments and pronouncements need to reconnect with the local community in ASEAN. One crucial component of this is the engagement of the university research sector at the local level. Strong relationships should be built with these institutions of higher learning to help them become not only repositories of local knowledge of disaster management, but also to inform and develop locally-led disaster management policy that shapes regional efforts within and outside the region to fully realise the original aims under the motto “One ASEAN One Response”.

    It was not for regional entities to become dominated by global norms shaped by more powerful entities, but for them to contribute regional perspectives to inform the global dialogue, particularly in a policy realm where the grounds for multi-stakeholder cooperation are fertile.

    While it is inevitable that socialisation and power politics occur within the global context, there is a need for this conversation to be heard, and to articulate the priorities of the people. This will generate much-needed momentum within the region to address disaster risk, build a more disaster-resilient society, and achieve the 2030 goals on time. This experience will even provide the global community with evidence-based policies to shape broader disaster policy conversations.

    Revitalising Disaster Policy: An Important Agenda for ASEAN Towards 2043

    At present, there is a lack of initiatives reflecting local realities to sustain and elevate disaster management policy to meet the challenges of today and those we will face in the next 20 years. The region faces two fundamental challenges that need to be addressed: (1) failure to meet Sendai Framework indicators and regression even by 2030; and (2) the loss of strong leadership that drives action, engages personnel, and provides direction in the coming years.

    There is a very real possibility that ASEAN would not meet the Sendai targets by 2030. This prospect is not simply because of the COVID-19 legacy of the past three years but signals the divergence between local needs and policy action at ASEAN level. When measured by tangible outcomes at the societal level, including the ground-level real-risk trajectory, data suggests that the real risks should concern many players and stakeholders. For example, one small earthquake event can be disastrous, as shown recently in Cianjur, Indonesia.

    We note that progress achieved in ASEAN disaster management policy has become weak. There are thousands of preventable hazards turning into disasters in the region. Furthermore, there is a lack of systematic evidence to show that sustainable recovery to avert future disasters, as promoted by the ‘build-back better’ framework, is underway. If the dual challenges of regressing on the 2030 targets and the loss of leadership are not tackled, then the progress achieved over the past twenty years will not be sustained for the next twenty.

    About the Authors

    Mely Caballero-Anthony is Professor of International Relations. She is also Head of the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre) at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Alistair D. B. Cook is Coordinator of the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Programme and Senior Fellow at the NTS Centre. Jonatan Lassa is Senior Lecturer, Emergency & Disaster Management, Faculty of Arts and Society, Charles Darwin University, Australia.

    Categories: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / Non-Traditional Security

    Last updated on 02/03/2023

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    Disaster Management in Southeast Asia: 20 Years of Progress and Challenges

    SYNOPSIS

    The management of consequences arising from natural hazards in Southeast Asia has seen laudable advancement in the last 20 years. The Association o ...
    more info