Responding to Natural Disasters: Regional Organizations and the Case of ASEAN

Responding to Natural Disasters: Regional Organizations and the Case of ASEAN
Research Question:
How may regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) improve disaster responses?
Introduction/ Context:
Recent occurrences of more frequent and severe natural disasters are raising global awareness for the need to build the capacities of national governments, of regional and international actors, and of civil society organizations in their efforts to prevent, respond and recover from natural disasters. The significance of disaster risk management (DRM) is becoming more prominent as scientists predict that conditions will worsen as a result of climate change (Bush 2015; Kamilvej, 2016). In the past two decades, regional organizations have increasingly become more active in DRM. They have assumed responsibilities in the coordination and provision of relief, have strengthened the organization of programs related to emergency prevention and preparedness, and have provided support in the long-term processes of reconstruction and recovery (Clement 2014; Daly & Feener, 2016; Rum, 2016). The Hyogo Framework on disaster risk reduction for example explicitly engages the use of regional capacities and mechanisms (HFA, 2005) yet despite this expanded scope, the role of regional organizations in DRM is largely unassessed (Ferris and Petz, 2013; Petz, 2014; Barber, 2015). Ferris (2011) maintains that regional bodies are kept “on the margins of international debates concerning humanitarian action” (p. 284), with Petz (2014) adding that they continue to receive “little attention from the academic community” (p.1).
Among the “little-studied” is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). With the exception of a few scholars, notably Guilloux (2009) who started to explore the Association’s response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and its related implications for regional disaster governance, and Collins (2013) who placed ASEAN’s approach to disaster management among the new dimensions of an ASEAN people-oriented rhetoric, most studying the organization have tended to focus on the “securitization of a number of man-made disasters, typically [those] described as any large-scale human violence” (di Floristella, 2016, p. 284) as opposed to natural disasters. This is surprising given that since the events of 2004, ASEAN has turned much of its attention towards improving its regional disaster capacity. It has, among others, established a disaster management agency called the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre); produced significant policies such as the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) ; developed an ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM) which oversees AADMER-related activities; and has conducted numerous training simulations and exercises to build the capacity of its individual member states (Thomas, 2009; Collins, 2013; Petz, 2014; di Floristella, 2016; Simm, 2016; Kamilvej, 2016). As such, this paper attempts to examine ASEAN’s approach to DRM and consider how and to what extent the organization, through its various regional arrangements, is building capacity for disaster response.
Justification/Significance of Topic:
Given the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, and the continued threat that they pose to human security, it is important to consider the role that regional organizations can play in improving disaster responses. Regional organizations may be the most appropriate source of immediate assistance given their geographical proximity to an affected state as well as their wealth of knowledge concerning the region.
Literature Review, Conceptual Framework and Methodology:
Much of the literature reviewed will focus on regional governance in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia and the birth of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). It will begin with an overview of the organization’s history, its intended purpose and operationalization, and the varying perspectives offered on its capacity to govern. One of the prominent arguments often made is that while ASEAN is credited with the “stabilization of relations and growing cooperation [amongst member states]…[a]t the same time, [its] norms and practices [of non-interference and consensus decision-making] have long been criticized for hindering a more “effective,” “action-oriented” regionalism (Ba, 2016, p.10; Caballero-Anthony & Chng, 2009; Guilloux, 2009; Collins, 2013; Loh, 2014). This purported reactive rather than proactive reputation will be considered in the context of disaster management – to what extent can ASEAN be proactive? Do the overarching norms that guide the organization hinder its effectiveness?
Prior to this, this paper will also look at the conceptualization of disaster management and what it entails. It will provide some background on the current state of disaster management at the regional and international level and define what constitutes a natural disaster. It is acknowledged that while no universal set of regulations exists to govern the provision of humanitarian assistance in times of natural disaster, there are frameworks that guide the actions of states and nonstate actors. The International Federation of Red Cross/ Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)’s guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation of international disaster relief and initial recovery assistance (also known as the IDRL Guidelines) and the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) are, for instance, two highly recognized frameworks that will be briefly discussed (Clement, 2014; Kamilvej, 2016; Simm, 2016).
Further, having established these concepts, the cases that will then be examined are (1) Myanmar – Cyclone Nargis in 2008 and (2) the Philippines – Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda in 2013. ASEAN participated in the relief efforts of both disasters, but its consequential role varies. With Nargis, its actions are said to have “confirmed the important role of regional organizations in mediating between states and international bodies” (Renshaw, 2014, p. 188) since ASEAN’s involvement helped open up the regime to receiving foreign assistance whereas with Haiyan, “its role [was seen as] much smaller” (Simm, 2016, p. 137) due to the national capacity of the Philippines and its known openness to international humanitarian assistance. The differences in regime type then, in national capacities, coupled with the institutional developments that were taking place internally – at the time of Nargis, AADMER had only been adopted, not yet ratified; in contrast, when Haiyan struck, AADMER had already entered into force and the AHA had just been established – enable an interesting analysis of ASEAN’s effectiveness. It showcases how ASEAN in one instance, can operate as a critical facilitator/ coordinator of relief whereas in another instance, it may take on a more minimal role and provide assistance in a smaller capacity. Whichever the case, it should also be noted that the decision to focus on these two large-scale disasters is not to deny the severity of other disasters, rather it is to assess the disasters that are known to have elicited a greater regional response by the organization itself. Both Nargis and Haiyan are considered to be two of the gravest natural disasters to affect the region and so there is ample evidence on ASEAN’s contribution to the relief efforts.
Paper Structure:
This paper will comprise of five sections, including the introduction which will set the premise of the paper. It will highlight the increasingly prominent role that regional institutions can, and are starting, to play with regards to disaster management. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will be brought in as a key example and will be made the focus of the paper.
The next section will build upon the context of natural disasters and offer a more detailed explanation of (1) what constitutes a natural disaster and (2) what is involved in disaster management. It will review the existing frameworks adopted by state and nonstate actors in the provision of humanitarian assistance in times of natural disaster (mentioned above) and will illuminate the proneness of Southeast Asia to natural disasters. From 2004 to 2014 alone for instance, “the region as a whole accounted for more than fifty percent of global disaster mortalities” (Simm, 2016, p. 120) making it the ideal region for the exploration of disaster management initiatives.
Once this is established, the third section of the paper will revolve around ASEAN. It will first, discuss the concepts of governance and regionalism before second, examining ASEAN and its historical roots. ASEAN’s unique governing approach – that is, the “ASEAN way” inclusive of non-interference and consensus decision-making – will be highlighted along with the its venture into disaster management. It will be made clear that while disaster management has long been prioritized on the ASEAN agenda, it was not until the devastating effects of the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 that the institution began making notable change; the Indian Ocean tsunami will be framed as a “focusing event” or catalyst for ASEAN’s new efforts. Some of the major mechanisms that were then developed were: the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) and its related work programmes and simulation exercises; the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM); the Emergency Response and Assessment Team (ERAT); and the ASEAN Humanitarian Assistance Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management (AHA Centre). AHA Centre-led capacity development programmes such as the ASEAN-ERAT training, the AHA Centre Executive (ACE) Programme and the ASEAN Standards and Certification for Experts on Disaster Management (ASCEND) were also formed. This section will review most, if not all, and consider how they each function to harmonize regional practices on disaster management.
The fourth section will demonstrate how these mechanisms operate in practice. ASEAN’s involvement in the relief activities following the 2008 cyclone that struck Myanmar (Cyclone Nargis) will be compared to its later involvement in the relief activities pertaining to the 2013 typhoon that hit the Philippines (Typhoon Haiyan). It will highlight accomplishments as well as bring attention to the areas for potential improvement.
The final section – the conclusion – will summarize these findings with the intent of showing that despite some apparent shortcomings, ASEAN can, or possibly already has in some regards, improve disaster responses. It will outline some of the ongoing challenges, provide recommendations and highlight some of the recent developments (i.e. ASEAN Vision 2025 on Disaster Management). Most importantly, this section will argue that the attempts made by ASEAN thus far are a step in the right direction, that the existence of some regional disaster management framework enables capacity for collaboration, even if that collaboration is not yet formalized or consistent.
Project Timeline:
Date Task

January 13, 2020
MRP proposal – submit for review
January 24, 2019 Introduction

February 3, 2019
Section 1
February 14, 2019 Section 2

March 4, 2019
Section 3
March 13, 2019
Conclusion
March 20, 2019
First draft given to primary supervisor
April 2, 2019
Second draft given to primary supervisor and secondary reader
April 15, 2019 All corrections made, and final draft is submitted

References (cited in proposal – also includes other sources being reviewed):

Amador III, J. S. (2009). Community Building at the Time of Nargis: The ASEAN Response. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 28(4), 3-22. doi:10.1177/186810340902800401

ASEAN Secretariat. (2005). ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response. Retrieved from: https://asean.org/?static_post=asean-agreement-on-disaster-management-and-emergency-response-vientiane-26-july-2005-2

ASEAN Secretariat. (2010). ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response: Work Programme for 2010-2015. Retrieved from: https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/publications/AADMER%20WP%202011.pdf

Ba, Alice (2016). The Institutionalization of Southeast Asia. In Kuik C., Sud. S. and Ba A. D., (Eds.), Institutionalizing East Asia: mapping and reconfiguring regional cooperation (p.10-31). New York, NY: Routledge.

Barber, R. (2015). Localising the Humanitarian Toolkit: Lessons from Recent Philippines Disasters. In C. Brassard, A. M. Howitt & D. W. Giles (Eds.), Natural Disaster Management in the Asia Pacific (pp. 17-31). Japan: Springer.

Bellamy, A. (2010). A cyclone is not enough. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 19(2) doi:10.1108/dpm.2010.07319bab.002

Borchers, H. (2014). ASEAN’s Environmental Challenges and Non-Traditional Security Cooperation: Towards a Regional Peacekeeping Force? ASEAS – Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 7(1), 5-20. doi:10.14764/10.ASEAS-2014.1-2

Caballero-Anthony, M., & Chng, B. (2009). Cyclones and Humanitarian Crises: Pushing the Limits of R2P in Southeast Asia. Global Responsibility to Protect, 1, 131-155.

Chachavalpongpun, P., &Thuzar, M. (2009). Myanmar: Life after Nargis. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Clement, C. (2014). International Disaster Response Laws, Rules, and Principles: A Pragmatic Approach to Strengthening International Disaster Response Mechanisms. In D. D. Caron, M. J. Kelly & A. Telesetsky (Eds.), The international law of disaster relief (pp. 67-88). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, A. (2013). Building a people-oriented security community the ASEAN way. New York, NY: Routledge.

Daly, P. T., & Feener, R. M. (2016). Rebuilding Asia following natural disasters: approaches to reconstruction in the Asia-Pacific region. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

di Floristella, A. P. (2016). Dealing with natural disasters: Risk society and ASEAN: a new approach to disaster management. Pacific Review, 29(2), 283-305. doi:10.1080/09512748.2015.1013498

Ferris, E. G. (2011). The politics of protection the limits of humanitarian action. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Ford, S. (2010). Is the failure to respond appropriately to a natural disaster a crime against humanity? The responsibility to protect and individual criminal responsibility in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 38(2), 227.

Guan, B. T. C. (2004). ASEAN’s regional integration challenge: The ASEAN process. Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, (20), 70-94.

Haacke, J. (2009). Myanmar, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Need for Practical Assistance. Global Responsibility to Protect, 1, 156-184.

Haacke, J. (2009). The ASEAN regional forum: from dialogue to practical security cooperation? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(3), 427-449. doi:10.1080/09557570903104057

Howe, B., & Bang, G. (2017). Nargis and Haiyan: The Politics of Natural Disaster Management in Myanmar and the Philippines. Asian Studies Review, 41(1), 58-78. doi:10.1080/10357823.2016.1265484

Junk, J. (2016). Testing Boundaries: Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar and the Scope of R2P. Global Society, 30(1), 78-93. doi:10.1080/13600826.2015.1092423

Kamilvej, T. (2016). Institutionalization of Disaster Management in Southeast Asia. In Kuik C., Sud. S. and Ba A. D., (Eds.), Institutionalizing East Asia: mapping and reconfiguring regional cooperation (p.107-130). New York, NY: Routledge.

Karim, M. A. (2014). South Asian Regional Integration – Challenges and Prospects. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 15(2), 299-316. doi:10.1017/S1468109914000085

Loevy, K. (2015). The Legal Politics of Jurisdiction: Understanding ASEAN’s Role in Myanmar’s Disaster, Cyclone Nargis (2008). Asian Journal of International Law, 5(1), 55-93. doi:10.1017/S2044251314000083

Mcpherson, M., Counahan, M., & Julie, L. H. (2015). Responding to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Western Pacific Surveillance and Response, 6, 1-4. doi:10.5365/wpsar.2015.6.4.HYN_026

Narine, S. (2008). Forty years of ASEAN: a historical review. The Pacific Review, 21(4), 411-429. doi:10.1080/09512740802294689

Petz, D. (2014). Strengthening Regional and National Capacity for Disaster Risk Management: The Case of ASEAN. Brookings Institution, Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement. Retrieved from: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2014/11/05-south-east-asia-drm-petz/strengthening-regional-and-national-capacity-for-drm–case-of-asean-november-5-2014.pdf

Renshaw, C. S. (2014). Disasters, Despots, and Gun-Boat Diplomacy. In D. D. Caron, M. J. Kelly & A. Telesetsky (Eds.), The international law of disaster relief (pp. 164-189). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Rum, M. (2016). The Case of Regional Disaster Management Cooperation in ASEAN: A Constructivist Approach to Understanding How International Norms Travel. Southeast Asian Studies, 5(3), 491-514. doi:10.20495/seas.5.3_491

Salazar, L. (2015). Typhoon Yolanda: The Politics of Disaster Response and Management. Southeast Asian Affairs, 277-301.

Santiago, J. S., Manuela, W. S., Tan, M. L. L., Sañez, S. K., & Tong, A. Z. U. (2016). Of timelines and timeliness: lessons from Typhoon Haiyan in early disaster response. Disasters, 40(4), 644-667. doi:10.1111/disa.12178

Simm, G. (2018). Disaster Response in Southeast Asia: The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Response and Emergency Management. Asian Journal of International Law, 8(1), 116-142. doi:10.1017/S2044251316000205

Thomas, N. (2009). Governance and regionalism in Asia. New York, NY: Routledge.