EnRiCH Meeting (in Ottawa)

I had the opportunity to listen via telephone conference to a presentation about a disaster that is very different from the natural disasters that I am more accustomed to learning about. The talk was given by Dr. Mélissa Généreux on the long-term public health consequences of the Lac Megantic Crash – a train wreck disaster and explosion – that occurred in Canada on July 2013.

From her talk and my further review of her publication, some of the identified causes that exacerbated the consequences of the disaster include the lack of a national framework for disaster management. Issues included a lack of data on toxic chemical levels for officials to refer to when determining evacuation of the local at risk community. There was also inadequate communication between different rescue parties and an apparent lack of information sharing that led to delay in evacuation.

Despite the differing nature of these events, the issues relating to natural disasters disaster management and their consequences seem to me to be very similar. In particular the longer term mental health impacts such as PTSD amongst the population at risk remains a common problem in my view.

Using this Canadian incident study to reflect on possible similar incidents that might occur In Hong Kong, I remember the impact of the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision, where albeit a sufficiency of life jackets, the incident happened too rapidly for passengers to act. Despite the rapid response of rescue parties and abundance of rescue workers, casualty of the accident amounted to 39. A similar accident happened three years later at a similar area of shore, but luckily there was no casualty this time. However some passengers on-board admitted that there was distrust in the crew’s ability due to the previous incident.

If there had been a rescue plan that covers a comprehensive range of accidents, and publicly familiarized by the general population, perhaps the anxiety felt by victims and those affected can be minimized, and consequences of any future disasters can be curtailed.

Christiana Figueres of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

We went to the Grantham Lecture held by Imperial College, where Christiana Figueres of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was the speaker for the night. She once again highlighted the importance of the whole world’s attention to climate change and how society as a whole should adapt for climate change.

To summarize her speech, there are five key take-home messages: 1) action to adapt and against climate change has strong positive aspects to everyone in the world; 2) the COP21 agreement should have happened 10 years ago, and our actions have to speed up to meet the fast pace of climate change, as the world that goes above 2°C is systemically uninsurable; 3) it is vital to include women in decision-making on all other aspects of climate change; 4) there should be an inclusive approach where all relevant stakeholders (especially the private sector, universities and the funders) are included in the conversations about climate change and the delivery of actions; 5) there is imbalance in consequences: e.g. those who contribute most to climate change (e.g. the big economies) does not receive the most negative impacts (e.g. small pacific islands).

However, she was also optimistic about the current progress of climate change adaptations, and that she expects the agreement of COP21 can come into force before the expected 2020.

In summary, climate change adaptation and actions against its fast progress should be central in all science and technology developments and policy decisions. This complements decisions for disaster risk reduction, as disaster risk is exacerbated by climate change. The vulnerable populations, risks and the measures against them are all similar. In Hong Kong, there has always been attention on protecting the environment, and an increasing dialogue for disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation. An interdisciplinary platform sharing both sides of expertise could be established for the sustainable development of the city.

Watch the recording: 

Social Cohesion

I attended a seminar on the “Addressing social cohesion in urban humanitarian response” organised by the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) recently, and it tied in nicely with my MSc thesis, which was about community resilience in face of disasters.

The speakers argued that social cohesion is one of the most fundamental characteristics to maintain after the onset of the disaster. Social cohesions can easily breakdown if recovery is slow due to complexity in providing perceived basic needs such as water, sanitation and shelter, and it would be too late to start building them back.

In my previous research for my Masters thesis, I have also learnt that along with an increase in social cohesion, and a consequent increase sense of belonging within the community, there will also be an increase in community disaster resilience, which, according to UNISDR’s definition, is the community’s ability to “resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner”. Thus social cohesion is an important characteristic that should not be disregarded in planning disaster response.

-------------
Reference: Ayyub BM. Systems resilience for multihazard environments: Definition, metrics, and valuation for decision making. Risk Analysis. 2013.

Call for capacity development for Disaster Risk Reduction & Disaster Risk Management

Following the call for local, national, regional and international capacity development for the DRR sector in the Sendai Framework and the UNISDR S&T conference, there has been a further discussion about internationally accredited training that not only assures quality of training, but also allows a more standardized set of training materials.

Although there are various training programmes across the world, an internationally recognized training standard is currently lacking. Accreditation is important as it could allow a universally recognized training standard which could more efficiently improve on the quality of training all over the world, with shared resources. 

In my previous work, we have been involved in train the trainer processes where we try to empower local communities. However, although the material and teachings are standardized within our organization, they are currently not recognized by other institutes. 

It has been an interesting process to observe the discussion and these issues that could link local community interventions with global priorities. Hong Kong, as an important humanitarian resource provider in the region, could take part in order to improve on the credibility of training services.

House of Lords - Questions for Short Debate

The Earl of Selborne submitted a question for short debate to ask: “Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made towards implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.” The short debate was held in the House of Lords in the Parliament of the UK. I had the opportunity to attend the debate as a member of the public.

The Sendai Framework, signed in Japan in March 2015, and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, is a 15-year non-binding agreement which “recognizes that the State has the primary role to reduce disaster risk but that responsibility should be shared with other stakeholders including local government, the private sector and other stakeholders. It aims for the following outcome: The substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries.”

A few challenges to progress and priorities for action were raised during the debate such as challenges for early and accurate warning for earthquakes (deemed quite impossible?) and for disaster risks to be incorporated into development planning in cities, such as strengthening building codes and land use. Speakers also emphasized importance for partnership with other countries in order to strengthen each other’s systems, especially for developing countries where disasters are costing big portion of their GDP. These actions are high in priority for the UK, and the UK has contributed immensely through science and technology and on monetary terms in the DRR field.

Hong Kong is in the heart of DRR development in Asia, where it has the capacity to provide scientific and technological aid to those in need, there should be more discussions on how Hong Kong, as a global player can contribute to the field of DRR particularly in places of need such as in South-East Asia and China.

On the other hand, Hong Kong should also perhaps assess whether its DRR measures are up to par to international standards and develop in areas where it does not have adequate procedures (perhaps due to perceived unimportance) such as standards for bicycle use during times of disaster or  warning systems for uncommon natural disasters.

Heatwave Plan

I attended the annual Heatwave Plan Seminar conducted by the Extreme Events and Health Protection team of Public Health England this Monday. This seminar reviewed the 2015 Heatwave plan for England. Around sixty professionals attended from a wide sector of the health and local authority community and these were supported by academics and government officials. The findings from this seminar will be added to the evolution of the Heatwave Plan for England that will be published in May 2016 by Public Health England and its wider partners including the National Health Service for England and Local Authorities.

As Hong Kong, being in the subtropical climate, is also very prone to heatwaves in the summers, it was interesting to see what England does as a nation to reduce excess mortality and adverse health effects associated with heat and I found it an opportunity for learning on how science can inform policy and practice and its evaluation takes place with Public Health England. I had the opportunity to be a rapporteur for two sessions which allowed me to participate in the process more fully.

During the summer of 2003 a heatwave in August caused a high excess mortality across the whole of Europe. The Heatwave Plan in England started in 2004 as a response to this event. It has since been updated annually to reflect issues identified in the previous year, accommodating new relevant scientific evidence and renewing actions for the year. This has been crucial in in reducing heatwave impact despite England being in a relatively cool climate.

Unlike Hong Kong, England is not as hot and humid. However, with the temperatures rising each summer, overheating is a looming problem in England, coupled with the inadequate ventilation in buildings, especially in single aspect dwellings and high rise blocks on urban heat islands. One of the main recommendations in England is for improved building standards, with designs for passive cooling systems and green areas in its surrounding environments. The use of air-conditioning is also not as common as in Hong Kong as it is not a long term sustainable solution to the heat, due to the amount of power it consumes and related issues of fuel poverty. One of Hong Kong’s main issues is its high reliance on air-conditioning indoors. On top of that, in Hong Kong, like England, the population most vulnerable to heatwaves – the elderly – often do not see themselves as susceptible to heat-related illnesses and often are not willing to turn on their air-conditioners in order to cut costs. Hence there may be a need for a comprehensive heatwave plan in Hong Kong.

The Heatwave Plan Seminar identified as one of the challenges that a lot of useful data and recommendations does not appear to be reaching those who are actually affected by the heat, such as elderly living in social isolation, and may stop at higher levels such as managers of care homes rather than getting used by their staff and residents. Overheating in care homes has been identified as a problem, so a need to raise awareness is important and even to encourage more effective sharing of the leaflet designed for guidance to case home managers and their staff. Therefore the question of how to effectively deliver the message and have greater involvement of the community and the private sector (such as the housing sector) to mainstream the awareness of keeping cool during the summer remains a priority.

Keeping Quality

I had the honour of playing the role of an observer in two quality governance meetings within the organisation recently. Before that, I had little idea how quality is kept for work done within PHE.

Some of the key messages I got out of these two meetings was that even though it was absolutely necessary to celebrate good practice, it was also important to record and learn lessons from instances that did not go well and communicate these lessons. 

This has again reminded me the importance of dissemination of information between different groups. In order to keep accountability of an organisation, a culture of quality-keeping and good governance must be maintained, with a comprehensive plan of communication reaching all levels, not only reaching those in senior roles, in order to allow higher transparency of the quality keeping agenda.

As there is no comprehensive plan for disaster risk reduction in HK yet, when establishing such plan, it would be vital to also incorporate a plan for quality control across departments in order to maintain accountability of all actions and publications carried out.