Economic Outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2024

Developing amid Disaster Risks

Report

Economic Outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India

2 May 2024

2. A holistic approach to disaster-resilient development

Abstract

Disasters endanger people from all walks of life and all sectors of a country’s economy. Beyond their devastating immediate effects, disasters hamper the achievement of sustainable development. Achieving disaster-resilient development requires a holistic policy approach. This chapter discusses key policy areas to consider in designing a holistic approach: transforming governance and improving institutional capacity, ensuring adequate budgets, broadening financing options, strengthening disaster-risk reduction training and education, investing in disaster resilient infrastructure, addressing disaster-induced migration and adopting risk-sensitive land-use planning, developing and adopting technology to bolster disaster response and resilience, fortifying health responses to disasters, and facilitating the contributions of the private sector.

Introduction

The countries of Emerging Asia are located in the world’s most disaster-prone region1 (Figure 2.1). The region is affected by earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. In addition, rising temperatures are contributing to increasingly frequent and severe climatological and hydrometeorological disasters, such as floods, storms, landslides, droughts and forest fires.

Different countries face different types of disasters. Floods are the major threat in most of the region’s countries, but some countries, such as Myanmar, the Philippines and Viet Nam, are more affected by tropical storms, while Indonesia is more exposed to earthquakes.

The WorldRiskIndex ranks the Philippines, Indonesia and India as among the countries most vulnerable to natural hazards in the world, while the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) and many other countries in the region are also among the world’s most exposed to natural disaster risk. High vulnerability levels are attributed to a high susceptibility to natural hazards, a lack of coping capacity and a lack of adaptive capacity (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.1. Total disaster occurrences in Emerging Asia, 2000-23

Figure 2.2. World Risk Index and its components for Emerging Asia, 2000-23

Beyond their immediate effects, which can be potentially devastating, disasters impede the achievement of long-term development and sustainability by interrupting the production and distribution of goods and services. Vulnerable groups and communities are particularly endangered by disasters. The effects of disasters can be seen through the human, physical, economic, social and cultural challenges. For instance, consumption changes and reduced human capital development are the effects disasters can have on economic behaviour. Molnar-Tanaka, Ibrahim and Hean (2023[2]) find that disasters reduce consumption and change consumption patterns in the short term, based on evidence from Thailand and the Philippines. Aladangady et al. (2017[3]) show that in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Matthew in the United States in October 2016, consumer discretionary spending decreased, falling by 4.1% at restaurants, and 6.8% at clothing stores. Moreover, disasters also affect human capital development through health, education, and migration. Husted, Opper and Park (2022[4]) find that disasters reduce a region’s stock of human capital along multiple dimensions, including out-migration of productive labour, reduction of student achievement and learning, and postponement or permanent reduction of higher levels of educational attainment. Similarly, Baez, de la Fuente and Santos (2010[5]) find that disasters bring substantial damages to human capital through death and harmful consequences for nutrition, health and education.

A holistic approach is needed for disaster-resilient development

Achieving disaster-resilient development is critical, and doing so requires the strategic introduction of a holistic policy approach. A holistic approach is one that accounts for factors that strengthen synergies in disaster risk reduction by identifying potentially beneficial opportunities across policies and programmes (UNDRR, 2023[6]). Such an approach considers the whole of the economy and integrates needs and solutions for each sector. Therefore, robust co-ordination underpins a successful holistic approach. Weak co-ordination also hampers quick and effective responses in times of emergency. Clarification of the roles of each agency involved in disaster management is important for effective co-ordination (UNISDR, 2015[7]). In addition, approaches to disaster risk management should ideally be interdisciplinary. Disasters often have a widespread impact on myriad systems and environments, so individual disciplines are unable to address all risks and problems caused by natural disasters (Ingham et al., 2012[8]; National Research Council, U.S. Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences: Future Challenges and Opportunities, and U.S. Division on Earth and Life Studies National Research Council, 2006[9]; Peek and Guikema, 2021[10])

Disasters and development process are closely interlinked and a more thorough incorporation of disaster risk considerations into development policies and strategies would lead to improved disaster-resilient development (Molnar-Tanaka, forthcoming[11]). The Hyogo Framework – which represents a paradigm shift from prevention to resilience – is reinforced in the Sendai Framework. At the 43^rd ASEAN summit, held in Jakarta in September 2023, the ASEAN member countries reaffirmed the need for commitment to support and accelerate implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), and also emphasised commitment towards enhancing disaster resilience in the region through effective implementation of the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER). The ASEAN Leader’s Declaration on Sustainable Resilience focuses on enhancing regional collaboration and partnership for climate and disaster resilience. The declaration, which sets 12 goals, emphasises strengthening partnerships, sharing knowledge and information, and building capacity to address sustainable resilience challenges. The declaration also calls for improving disaster risk governance, refining early warning and dissemination systems, and financial resilience through risk financing and insurance. It advocates leveraging science, technology and innovation; ensuring inclusive resilience practices; and supporting local communities by integrating global commitments into a harmonised approach.

This paradigm shift recognises the interplay between disaster risk and development, highlighting how poor development practices can exacerbate vulnerability and lead to significant development setbacks. Comprehensive risk assessment and management, and strategic development of a holistic policy approach towards disaster-resilient development is required.

The policy areas on which this chapter builds its holistic approach are:

improving governance and institutional capacity
ensuring an adequate budget for coping with disasters
broadening disaster risk financing options
investing in disaster-resilient infrastructure
establishing comprehensive land-use planning
developing disaster-related technology
strengthening disaster risk reduction education
improving health responses to disasters
facilitating the role of the private sector.

Transforming governance and improving institutional capacity amid rising disaster risks

Understanding disaster risk management in Emerging Asia requires analysis of the region’s institutions and co-ordination networks. Current implementation frameworks and governance choices signal misalignment of intent and actions on the ground. Weak disaster risk reduction strategies persist in many parts of Emerging Asia, translating directly into more severe loss of lives and livelihoods, massive economic losses, and a worsening of health and social systems when disasters strike.

This section focuses on the question of how countries in Emerging Asia can adopt or transform institutions and governance systems to cope with the increasing risk posed by disasters. The governance structure for addressing disasters requires integrating complex causal structures and dynamic institutional transformation. New processes and rapidly evolving actions are also required in disaster risk management to enhance community engagement and transformative change.

Institutional challenges inhibit progress towards proactive disaster risk reduction implementation

Institutional and governance challenges present barriers to disaster risk reduction implementation. Multilayered bureaucracies and fragmented national policies impede a unified, co-ordinated approach to disaster risk management in both pre-disaster (ex-ante) and post-disaster (ex-post) response. They defy efforts to delineate boundaries, identify causes or map the consequences of decisions, leading to a situation that is difficult to manage through normal means.

At the same time, disaster risk management should aim to be proactive, although most national and local governments in Emerging Asia tend to take a reactive approach. This can be attributed to factors including complex governance structures and co-ordination issues across sectors and national and local entities; lack of an updated legal framework for disaster risk management implementation; administrative constraints in ensuring that disaster risk management funding cascades down to local governments; lack of public awareness and technical capacity; and lack of well-integrated feedback mechanisms.

Many governments in Emerging Asia have not implemented disaster risk reduction policies fully. Factors that contribute to such protracted progress include institutional traps and capability traps. Institutional traps are self-reinforcing processes that keep the key institutions implementing disaster management in a configuration likely to undermine the potential of a society to cope with the impact of natural disasters (Lebel and Lebel, 2017[12]). Capability traps involve persistent stagnation of administrative capability, which constitutes a major constraint to disaster management progress (Pritchett, Woolcock and Andrews, 2010[13]).

Local systems well-aligned with well-functioning national systems are critical for disaster risk management

In Emerging Asia, disaster risk management systems usually feature a high-level governing body authorised to design and implement policy and lead co-ordination. This body is responsible for formulating frameworks, strategies and action plans at the national level. However, well-aligned national government and sectoral ministries could facilitate local authorities and communities taking a critical role in disaster preparedness and response, while ensuring that their needs are met. Such a delegation of authority is intended to address challenges such as geographic diversity, differences in local knowledge and expertise, and layers of bureaucracy. This approach applies to many countries in Emerging Asia, where disaster risk management governance systems often possess a combination of centralised and decentralised elements. For instance, the Philippines’ National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework (NDRRMF) follows a two-pronged approach where authority is vested in sectoral agencies of the national government as well as multiple sub-national governments. Both aspects of the Framework are expected to converge at the regional level, wherein regional development plans are well-aligned with the national sectoral plans, and integrated into the activities at the provincial, municipal, city, and barangay level (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. The Philippines’ Implementation Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

A decentralised disaster risk management system, however, presents implementation challenges due to the institutional weaknesses of many countries in the region. The challenges include co-ordination issues, fragmented disaster response, weak capacity and skills, ambiguous legal frameworks and disparities in resources between regions. Decentralised systems can also raise accountability issues and suffer from authoritative ambiguity due to the multilayered dispersion of power. For instance, in the Thai disaster risk management institutional framework, the proper assessment of the severity of a flood is critical to avoid ambiguity in authority and ensure appropriate response measures. During the severe floods in 2011, national and local roles and responsibilities became unclear and ambiguous under the emergency and disaster mechanism. At the provincial and local level, there was lack of co-ordination on flood prevention and management planning across administrative areas (GFDRR/World Bank/UN, 2011[14]).

Inefficiencies in resource allocation often occur, stemming from unclear legal and administrative processes and diverging priorities between national and local governments. Many countries in Emerging Asia face inadequate resources and capacity to support programmes, projects and activities on disaster risk reduction. This has contributed to the predominance of reactive disaster risk management in the region. The potential magnitude of economic losses due to disasters has not translated into budgetary policies that support the strengthening of disaster management initiatives.

Ambiguous laws and regulations and misalignment of goals at different government levels weaken disaster risk reduction implementation

Many countries in Emerging Asia face legal challenges that impede the effectiveness of disaster preparedness, response and recovery. In most countries of the region, governing institutions at all levels face fragmented rules, with multiple laws, regulations and policies vesting authority in various departments that govern different aspects of disaster management.

Such laws often give overlapping authority to local government units, which can lead to conflicting interpretations on which authority is the highest. A lack of clarity on roles, responsibilities, lines of command and co-ordination mechanisms contributes to challenges in the response phase. In addition, procedural standards and response guidelines remain weak, and administrative hurdles weaken the development of an effective disaster risk management system.

In addition, the implementation framework (national, sectoral and local) is not able to adapt its policies and measures to the evolving nature of disasters. There is also misalignment in the executive-legislative agenda, which does not reflect the short- and long-term objectives under regional and local planning documents. The Government of India, for example, continues to demonstrate substantial efforts in its transition from a response-based paradigm to an anticipative, prevention-based approach. This requires a deeper assessment of the dynamics of disasters, institutions, policies, and localities. The institutional structure proposed in law should be understood based on the political and bureaucratic contexts of the central and state governments.

In some countries, political cycles and short-term priorities drive decision making in the approval of projects, programmes and budget allocation at the local level. A higher priority tends to be given to projects with immediate, visible benefits, such as cash donations and other in-kind handouts to communities during disaster relief efforts. This results from the absence of political will to invest in long-term, less-visible disaster risk reduction measures. It leads to a cycle that prioritises reactive measures. Moreover, priorities in disaster risk management often diverge between national governments with broader, longer-term objectives, on the one hand, and local institutions with more localised concerns on the other. This leads to conflict and a lack of alignment in disaster preparedness and response efforts.

The factors that affect the operationalisation of disaster risk management at the local level can be classified into three groups: i) institutional factors, such as the autonomy of local bodies, institutional cohesion, organisational co‑operation and collaborative arrangements; ii) information factors, or knowledge, awareness and the availability of reliable information; and iii) resource factors, or the availability of financing and human resources (Cuevas, 2017[15]). At the institutional level, local authorities are often confronted with ambiguous and disjointed laws and regulations that do not account for the limited capacity and needs of localities on the ground. This can lead to disconnected, overlapping and ambiguous communication among institutions involved in disaster management and ignorance of established disaster action plans.

More thorough monitoring and evaluation of the impact of disaster risk management is necessary

Well-developed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are crucial to ensuring that disaster risk management efforts are effective, efficient and accountable. Through M&E, governments are able to gather accurate data to make informed decisions, allocate resources wisely and prioritise timely programmes. M&E systems can help governments to streamline accountability for disaster risk management outcomes. They provide transparency in tracking progress and ensure that resources are used effectively and efficiently. To ensure effective and efficient resource allocation, comprehensive cost-benefit analysis – which includes full economic appraisals rather than only financial appraisals – is necessary. M&E systems are also able to identify and address issues and gaps in disaster preparedness and in response and recovery plans. This contributes to strengthening the overall disaster risk management strategy.

Efforts to develop M&E systems for disaster risk management in Emerging Asia have not been comprehensive and face common issues, such as data deficiency, resource constraints, capacity gaps and weak political will. A main challenge in setting up M&E is the limited availability of disaster risk data, especially from the subnational level. Fragmentation and limitations of data across all components of disaster risk reduction and management hamper not just measurement and evaluation of the impact and outcomes of disasters, but also disaster-related research. Another challenge is that scarce financial and technical resources, which limit disaster risk management implementation, can make M&E development a low-priority issue. A robust M&E system across countries in Emerging Asia is essential in order put in place: i) the prioritisation of outcomes, projects and activities; ii) clear delineation of roles and responsibilities among mandated agencies and local governments for accountability; and iii) appropriate, clear and identified funding sources for each of the priority outcomes.

Policies for improving governance and institutional capacity

As discussed above, disaster risk management in most countries in Emerging Asia poses a complex and multifaceted challenge that requires that the institutional framework at the national level be able to match the needs and capability of sectoral, regional and local units. This section discusses a set of policies for improving governance and institutional capacity in Emerging Asia.

Develop robust risk assessment

Governments need a well-developed risk assessment mechanism. Comprehensive risk assessment should be made an obligatory step in the formulation of disaster risk management policies and measures. Decisions on ex-ante investments should be carried out only after a rigorous risk assessment. In particular, the assessment should be able to account for the evolving nature of disasters, which are expected to become increasingly systemic and complex, and should be matched with a highly dynamic institutional and governance mechanism. Risk assessment should include the cumulation of technical knowledge covering all disciplines that are vulnerable to disasters, including economic, environmental, social and cultural dynamics. Robust risk assessment is dependent on establishing accurate and up-to-date data on disasters, risks and vulnerability assessments.

Prioritise sustained ex-ante investments in disaster risk reduction

An effective disaster management strategy relies heavily on pre-disaster planning and preparedness in order to mitigate the impact of disasters. Ex-ante planning ensures that response efforts can be initiated promptly when a disaster occurs. Both national and local governments across major countries in the region struggle to implement activities due to a lack of financial resources, which stems from legal and administrative constraints and competing demands for financing in other areas. It is important to increase flexibility in budget allocation and support disbursement of funds from the national or central government to local authorities. Meanwhile, local government units should promote the transparency and accountability of their disaster risk management budgets to ensure that the funds are allocated and used effectively. Community involvement is also crucial in pre-disaster planning and preparedness. Local input and participation in budget decisions is important to help ensure the integration of needs and priorities down to the community level.

At the regional level, the ASEAN intensified its commitment to support the implementation of the ASEAN Framework on Anticipatory Action in Disaster Management. The ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Disaster Management adopted the Halong Statement, which aims to further strengthen key areas of disaster risk management across all ASEN member states by i) improving risk information, forecasting and early warning systems at the regional and national levels; ii) enhancing planning, operations, and delivery of anticipatory actions; and iii) promoting pre-arranged finance to support successful anticipatory actions. It is also important to advocate for increased support and flexibility in the budget allocation and disbursement of funds from the national or central government to local authorities for disaster risk management activities.

Develop a capacity-building programme for all levels of government

Capacity building is vital in both the ex-ante and ex-post phases of disaster management. Capacity development will make local communities aware of their vulnerabilities and contribute to increasing their involvement in local planning, preparedness and emergency response. Capacity-building programmes should cover all aspects of disaster management. They should include training on the relevant disaster risk management regulations, guidelines and procedures so that all government units have the institutional knowledge to effectively carry out their functions and roles. The development of technical skills is critical for governments and agencies to develop comprehensive risk assessments and build emergency response strategies that are tailored to the specific context. Training modules for all stakeholders should be dynamic, incorporating lessons learned from past disasters and analysing the successes and failures of disaster management vis-à-vis recent disasters.

Review and update disaster management laws and regulations

With more frequent disasters and extreme climatic events, Emerging Asia is facing profound changes in the disaster risk landscape. Factors such as increasing urbanisation and population growth are expected to exacerbate the systemic risks posed by disasters. In order to mitigate and respond effectively to the evolving risks, countries need to adapt their disaster management laws and regulations. In this context, clarity in disaster risk management governance structure and co-ordination mechanisms is crucial. Laws and regulations should be reviewed and continuously refined to ensure that national agencies, implementing units and local governments can discern their roles and responsibilities, and avoid ambiguity and overlapping functions. Reviewing disaster management laws, regulations and guidelines for update offers the opportunity to incorporate lessons learned from post-disaster evaluations. By periodically reassessing institutional frameworks, countries can identify gaps and impediments, and strengthen disaster resilience and response. Finally, advances in technology need to be incorporated in disaster management operationalisation. New ways of carrying out data collection, analysis and risk assessment will be vital to forming appropriate policies and measures. The role of social media should be maximised to ensure quick dissemination of information, community awareness and participation, co-ordination of emergency response efforts and timely updates for affected communities.

Ensuring adequate budgets for coping with disasters

A significant roadblock to disaster preparedness and recovery in Emerging Asian countries is lack of funding. Budgets for both disaster preparedness and disaster response and recovery are below what is needed to put the region on track for sustainable, long-term readiness for natural disasters (UN.ESCAP, 2023[16]). Governments can take various steps to strengthen their budgets for disaster risk management. This section discusses a set of policies for preparing disaster management budgets in Emerging Asia.

Increase the availability of funds for ex-ante disaster risk reduction measures

Ex-ante measures can contribute to overall sustainable development, and can tackle issues of disaster preparedness and climate change at the same time (UN, 2015[17]). Given the high effectiveness of ex-ante measures, increasing budgetary provisions for them is an important policy objective.

However, in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, there is often strong political support within the international community for offering aid to affected countries, mobilising resources that would otherwise not have been available (Wisner and Gaillard, 2009[18]). Large international transfers are thus tied up in urgent but less efficient response and recovery measures and not available for preparedness measures. As a result, only approximately 7.4% of the financial needs for disaster adaptation are currently covered Southeast Asia (UN.ESCAP, 2023[16]).

Governments could create separate budgets for ex-ante and ex-post measures within funding structures in order to ensure that funds for ex-ante measures do not have to compete with post-disaster needs (Villacin, 2017[19]). This can help to ensure a dependable budget for long-term preparedness that can reduce the burden borne by ex-post funds. A model for such separation of funds can be found in Mexico’s former FONDEN Fund, which contained two separate pillars for expenditures: one for prevention and mitigation, and one for reconstruction. The Philippines government has taken the first step in this direction by reserving 30% of its main disaster funds for post-disaster activities, with the remaining 70% earmarked to finance ex‑ante measures, although this is often not respected by local governments (Domingo and Manejar, 2021[20]). A clearer separation of funds will be needed to ensure that ex-ante objectives are met.

Governments can incentivise the uptake of disaster resilience measures by tying higher reimbursement rates for property damage to risk reduction measures (Brucal et al., 2020[21]). Better conditions can be given to properties with ex-ante risk reduction measures in place or to those where such measures are part of the reconstruction plan (OECD/The World Bank, 2019[22]). Such incentives need to be accompanied by an effective communication strategy in order to raise awareness among businesses and households of the risks they face and their responsibilities in ensuring disaster resilience.

Fortify local government disaster budgets

Centralised co-ordination is beneficial for dealing with large-scale disasters but leaves little room for local decision making and for the integration of local capacities and expertise (Gaillard and Mercer, 2012[23]). Local governments have limited fiscal autonomy, relying on central government transfers for a large share of their disaster risk management budgets. This limits the ability of local governments to plan and implement timely and appropriate activities. Policy makers should aim to find the right decision-making balance between central and local governments so that a unified and efficient framework for disaster response can be centrally provided while still adapted to local needs. When tasks and responsibilities are devolved to local governments, adequate fiscal resources must be devolved as well to avoid overburdening the local budget (Domingo and Manejar, 2021[20]).

A lack of local capacity forces local governments in many countries into an unsustainable reliance on outside aid, both financially, and in terms of human capital. The volatile flow of knowledge into and out of disaster-prone areas undermines efforts to integrate local knowledge into disaster management. The effectiveness of nationally dispatched rescue teams can be severely hindered by their lack of familiarity with local areas, especially when there is a lack of local personnel with whom to co-ordinate (UNDRR, 2014[24]).

Figure 2.4. Philippines national disaster budget and uninsured natural disaster damage, 2015-23

In Thailand, for example, local government units have primary responsibility for responses to disaster events. However, local budgets are financed exclusively by local taxes and thus often limited in volume, preventing local government agents from developing the expertise in water management required to conduct effective flood-prevention programmes (UNDRR, 2020[25]). In Indonesia, where regional disaster management agencies are the first responders to natural disasters, human resources in those agencies could be subject to erosion by frequent staff rotation in government posts (Srikandini, Hilhorst and Voorst, 2018[26]).

In the Philippines, local governments are mandated to be the first to respond to disasters and to reserve 5% of their projected regular revenue for their local disaster funds. Between 2009 and 2016, the average disaster affected person in the Philippines has suffered approximately USD 161.40 in direct economic damage per capita compared to USD 19.36 per capita available in public funding (Brucal et al., 2020[21]). The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund has been too small to cover uninsured damage caused by disasters in some years, particularly those of heavy typhoon seasons (e.g. 2015, 2020 and 2021) (Figure 2.4). Furthermore, even when the amount of the fund would otherwise be sufficient, restrictions on the purposes for which the fund may be used can lead to the funds being inaccessible to authorities in charge of disaster recovery. For example, the Vietnamese Disaster Prevention and Control (DPC) Law narrowly describes the use-cases for the national disaster fund, including mostly disaster response measures and complicating its use for most ex-ante measures (World Bank Group, 2018[27]).

Several measures to increase the availability of disaster budgets to local governments should be considered. For instance, countries may consider tying them directly to fiscal income at the respective level (Villacin, 2017[19]). Interregional fund sharing can be implemented by allowing local governments to share their disaster budgets with disaster-affected neighbouring governments. Such sharing is allowed in the Philippines if the receiving locality is in a state of calamity, but it has taken place infrequently and regional disparities in disaster budgets have persisted (Domingo and Manejar, 2021[20]).

Unexpended funds at the end of a fiscal year can be accumulated in trust funds and invested in insurance or disaster-related capital market instruments to improve the capacity to respond to large-scale disasters in the ensuing fiscal periods.

Broadening disaster risk financing options

Formulating a grand design is essential for effective disaster risk financing

Effective disaster risk financing requires formulating a grand design that covers the entirety of the economy. Coherent strategies for building financial resilience to disasters involve an integrated approach to managing disaster risk across all levels of government.

The financial aspect of such a grand design has two main pillars: a risk-pooling function and a risk-transfer function. Pooling risk, typically in the form of insurance, improves resilience. These pools can act as insurance carriers that provide insurance unavailable through the private sector or as reinsurers that fortify the risk-bearing capacity of primary insurers. National schemes have been used effectively both in OECD countries and in emerging markets. Examples include the National Flood Insurance Program in the United States and Türkiye’s Catastrophe Insurance Pool. However, governments should also foster private insurance markets so that private insurers cover most disaster losses incurred by households and firms. Risk transfer is another strategy for increasing disaster resilience. This process typically takes place through market-based solutions such as insurance-linked securities (ILS) or catastrophe (CAT) bonds. Risk transfer should be an integral pillar of any grand design. CAT bonds in particular should be included in an optimal sovereign risk management strategy for any country facing high exposure to disasters.

Improving access to disaster insurance is crucial

Many Emerging Asian countries exhibit low insurance penetration rates, with a relatively small percentage of GDP allocated to insurance premiums (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.5. Insurance penetration in selected Asian countries, 2021

Premiums as % of GDP

Facilitating access to disaster insurance and ensuring their widespread delivery to at-risk populations is a crucial issue. Two approaches have been commonly employed to encourage adoption: premium subsidies and compulsory bundled insurance. However, both approaches include substantial administrative costs incurred by insurers and in particular, compulsory bundled insurance adds to the administrative responsibilities of insurance providers, as they must manage both the insurance aspect and the financial product, increasing operational costs (Shynkarenko et al., 2022[29]).

Simplifying disaster insurance and making it more accessible could increase penetration among households or firms with lower financial literacy. Insurance companies should be incentivised to create user-friendly and transparent insurance products that can lead to improved access for potential customers. Digitalisation has the potential to bridge insurance protection gaps by enhancing the precision of underwriting, risk mitigation and risk assessment, increasing the accessibility and affordability of insurance. Integrating digital strategies into disaster insurance can better align the offerings with consumer demand, while removing burdens from traditional approaches that will be useful in areas of weaker internet connectivity or digital literacy.

Designing a disaster risk insurance programme involves setting appropriate premiums

Disaster risk insurance programmes can be distinguished based on the type of coverage offered, the range of perils and policyholders covered, and the premium pricing structure applied within the programme. These elements can yield distinct effects in terms of overcoming the challenges of insurability, increasing the accessibility of affordable disaster risk insurance, promoting risk reduction and protecting public finances.

Premium pricing structures vary. One common type can involve a fixed cost based on sum insured, disregarding property location or construction features. Another approach employs simplified premium structures that account for broader risk characteristics, such as property location and construction type. This is typical of the earthquake and volcanic eruption reinsurance programme in Japan, the disaster insurance programmes provided in several cantons in Switzerland, the earthquake insurance programme in Türkiye and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the United States. Some programmes implement fully risk-based premiums, factoring in property location, characteristics of construction and other underwriting aspects, such as the earthquake insurance programme in California and the hurricane reinsurance programme in Florida.

In the case where all policyholders share the same level of risk, the premium rate would be identical for each one. This uniform premium rate approach is observed in several countries, including New Zealand and Indonesia (JICA, 2021[30]). In practice, however, variations in the anticipated loss usually arise due to differences in the insured facility's location and its susceptibility to risks. When such variations exist, employing a uniform premium rate leads to mismatches between expected losses and the actual premiums paid by individual policyholders, with the policyholders at lower risk cross-subsidising those at higher risk.

In contrast, risk-based premiums adhere to a fundamental principle of ensuring fairness among policyholders, a core necessity for an insurance system. As technologies for assessing and anticipating localised risks become more accessible, insurers are increasingly adopting personalised risk-assessment and pricing strategies (Lucas and Booth, 2020[31]). In a perfect market, risk-based insurance products would inform both the market and households about the cost of risk management. As a result, consumers would react to price signals by making their properties more resilient to disasters, consequently driving down the cost of coverage (Aakre et al., 2010[32]). However, issues may arise if the implementation of risk-based premiums by private insurers results in scenarios where they opt not to provide insurance to specific households (McAneney et al., 2016[33]), or if premiums rise to unaffordable levels for low-income households residing in high-risk zones (Penning-Rowsell and Pardoe, 2015[34]). The most vulnerable populations may then have limited access to insurance coverage, leading to clusters of uninsured properties in high-risk areas (Gearing, 2018[35]).

Government support for disaster insurance presents a varied landscape in ASEAN

In economies with underdeveloped insurance markets, insurance products might be unavailable or unaffordable because disaster risk is challenging or even impossible to insure due to the anticipated frequency and severity of such events. A study conducted on insurance schemes across the European Union (EU) Member States highlights that high insurance penetration rates are linked to the government’s direct participation in insurance programmes, whereas countries with low insurance penetration rates often lack direct governmental involvement in their insurance programmes (Paleari, 2019[36]).

To address insufficient market-based insurance and make risk transfer mechanisms more accessible and affordable, governments often take on the role of primary insurer. When the government assumes this role, it directly bears liability for losses without the private insurance sector sharing the losses. As governments possess the ability to access funds at the lowest cost, they can offer the most cost-effective disaster risk insurance. However, government insurance programmes might face significant challenges related to moral hazard, a condition whereby people are reluctant guard against risk when protected from its consequences, raising the cost of providing protection.

Subsidies are another measure taken by governments to render insurance products more affordable. Subsidies can mitigate the financial barriers that hinder individuals or businesses from obtaining necessary coverage. A direct premium subsidy is the most basic type of subsidy, as it immediately lowers the policyholder’s financial obligation. While recognising the pressing need to ensure that low-income households are financially protected against disasters, governments in developing economies often struggle with the financial burden associated with providing subsidies (Reyes et al., 2017[37]). Striking the right balance between alleviating short-term welfare concerns for the low-income population and promoting long-term economic growth opportunities demands a targeted approach to subsidies. Comprehensive consideration of subsidy programmes is required to ensure that they are both cost effective and targeted towards those who need them the most. However, subsidies alone may not stimulate insurance penetration as much as desired, even if policies become affordable. In Viet Nam, for instance, uptake of insurance among farmers is low, as income and willingness to pay are uncorrelated. Factors such as behavioural traits, social networks and other traditional risk management practices may also suppress demand for insurance.

Governments may enter public-private partnerships (PPPs) that incorporate advantages of both private and public insurance systems. Indeed, PPPs are a common method for governments to work with private companies to deliver public services with the goal of improving quality and offering greater value for cost (Auzzir, Haigh and Amaratunga, 2014[38]). In a PPP, the government assumes multiple obligations, such as acting as a guarantor, subsidising premiums and providing reinsurance.

Altun and Güldiken (2019[39]) highlight that PPPs offer remedies for market failures and behavioural biases relating to disaster insurance. For instance, government guarantees that facilitate extreme risk coverage can expand penetration of mandatory insurance programmes. Furthermore, insurance companies may be able to set reasonable premiums in a competitive system driven by PPPs (Ma and Jiang, 2017[40]). In recent years, several OECD countries, for instance, Hungary in 2003, Belgium in 2007, have implemented PPPs due to concerns about maintaining the affordability and financial viability of insurance amid increasing expected losses (Paleari, 2019[36]). The role of government is important in initiating and fostering such collaboration in a PPP model. Beyond improved weather monitoring infrastructure and reporting mechanisms, insurers in the region seek government support in providing accurate data that is easily available and useful (MicroSave Consulting et al., 2022[41]). In parallel, insurance companies can develop products that accurately reflect the potential risks associated with a specific region as they are equipped with actuarial expertise and risk assessment capabilities.

The region faces challenges in developing the private insurance market

In 2021, for instance, out of USD 250 billion in total natural disaster losses globally, 58% were uninsured (Swiss Re, 2023[42]). Barriers hindering insurers from offering pure private disaster insurance solutions exist on both sides of the market. On the supply side, major obstacles can include insufficient capital and limited reinsurance capacity; the degree of freedom to manage the underwriting process; and data availability (Dlugolecki and Hoekstra, 2006[43]). Demand side barriers can include perception of risk among consumers; consumers’ trust in insurance providers; price, availability and scale of public disaster relief; and claim payment efficiency. Regarding risk perception, individuals often exhibit limited awareness concerning their risk exposure, especially in the case of events characterised by low frequency but severe impact. This lack of awareness or understanding undermines the demand for adequate insurance coverage tailored to these risks, leading to market inefficiencies and gaps in coverage. If premiums are too high, consumers may be reluctant to purchase insurance due to the perceived unaffordability or lack of value in the insurance offered, leaving individuals and assets inadequately protected. Fast and efficient claim settlement is essential to encourage consumers and improve their confidence in purchasing insurance products. Failure to meet expectations when claim settlements lack efficiency or timeliness can deter consumers from investing in disaster insurance, contributing to potential market failure in the disaster insurance sector.

Countries with a long history of insurance and high insurance penetration rates are typically those that have left the development of disaster risk insurance markets to market-driven mechanisms and have seen some success in doing so (Blazhevski, 2019[44]). This success often reflects a long-standing culture of insurance adoption and a robust regulatory environment that enables market mechanisms to operate efficiently. According to a study conducted by Feyen et al. (2011[45]), the development of the non-life insurance sector can be associated with private ownership of the industry, a strong legal framework and developed credit markets. This is in line with Kwon (2011[46]), suggesting that privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation alone would not suffice for the insurance market to grow. Such growth requires a comprehensive legal framework within the country that outlines market accessibility and the extent of insurers’ operation. This regulatory framework should encompass aspects related to risk management and the diversification of investment portfolios, while also promoting fair competition within the market (Kwon, 2011[46]).

In a market characterised by deregulation, consolidation and reduced government ownership, the relaxation of underwriting constraints and premium regulations has created a growing opportunity for insurance companies to adopt a more commercially oriented and strategically focused approach. In countries such as China, India, Malaysia and Thailand, market deregulation and liberalisation have lowered the barriers for international insurers and fostered a more market-based system (Hussels et al., 2007[47]).

Despite these successes, limited openness to international markets can hamper private insurance market development in ASEAN. Under 2016 legislation in Indonesia, for instance, insurers seeking reinsurance coverage must first approach domestic Indonesian reinsurers before transferring premiums to offshore reinsurers. For Indonesian consumers, this mandatory local cession may be harmful since it limits their access to the global expertise and cutting-edge reinsurance solutions that foreign reinsurers may provide. Moreover, restrictions on offshore reinsurance can enhance localised risk concentration and have a detrimental impact on the economy, especially after the occurrence of a disaster since the local reinsurance industry may not be able to supply the capital needed to support economic recovery. The insurance industry’s heightened vulnerability over time may lead to macroeconomic weakness and financial instability.

Limited foreign ownership could also hinder local market development, while full ownership may ensure a more open and competitive market environment. This results in quality and long-term investments in local insurance markets, boosting employment, expanding coverage and strengthening domestic capital markets. Foreign investors can bring expertise, which will eventually develop local talent through knowledge transfers and sharing of best practices. Absorbing foreign expertise, using talent pools established by multinational corporations, and fusing them with local networks and customer bases, can help to develop domestic insurers, contributing to the overall improvement of the local industry. As the market becomes more competitive, there is greater incentive for local insurers to innovate and improve their services. As a result, more open markets typically experience faster growth (EU-ABC, 2016[48]).

Legal and regulatory frameworks that govern claims management represent additional key elements in the development of a private disaster insurance market. Regulators are generally responsible for two primary functions: protecting consumers against potential misconduct throughout the development and distribution of insurance products; and protecting insurance companies from the potential financial risk associated with offering coverage for events that may incur highly correlated losses (Hellmuth et al., 2009[49]). For instance, the European Union has been implementing a common framework that governs insurance companies’ capacity to meet their liabilities since the 1970s. This framework has undergone significant changes over time, including the introduction of newer directives such as the Solvency II Directive, which standardises insurance regulations across the European Union and provides guidelines related to margin requirements to mitigate insolvency risks (Mysiak and Pérez-Blanco, 2016[50]). In addition to solvency and risk management regulations, the fundamental elements of an insurance regulatory framework typically include corporate governance regulations, reinsurance regulations, intermediary regulations and authorising laws, such as licensing (Le Quesne et al., 2017[51]).

Training and education can help to close the insurance gap

Insurance penetration can be positively associated with financial literacy and risk exposure awareness. However, explaining insurance products to individuals with limited literacy and little engagement in formal financial markets can be challenging. The uptake of insurance can be stimulated by raising awareness of available financial protection options and the necessity of financial strategies to mitigate disaster risks. While many countries have introduced initiatives to promote disaster preparedness, few focus on addressing the financial impacts of disasters and the need for being financially prepared, despite the benefits of doing so (OECD, 2015[52]). Adding a financial component to public disaster preparedness messaging, and offering appropriate training for households and firms, should be an urgent policy priority.

An example is China, where the government, insurance regulatory agencies and private insurance companies actively participate in disaster advocacy initiatives through public service announcements, discussions and product promotions. These efforts promote disaster risk financing tools for individuals while encouraging other disaster loss prevention activities. Improving insurance awareness and insurance literacy in the region will be accomplished through PPPs.

Community-based approaches can be used in disaster risk financing

People in Emerging Asia rely on both formal and informal mechanisms to meet their insurance needs. In many cases, people prefer to rely on their social networks (family, friends and community), turning to government programmes as a last resort. However, those who lack strong social networks prior to a disaster risk being left out of such informal systems. Informal insurance systems also tend to fail when a disaster affects an entire region, as there are too few unaffected persons to participate.

Microfinance programmes offer an example of financial solutions based on community enforcement and may act as a form of insurance for those unable to access traditional markets. However, the flexibility offered by microfinance programmes may come at the cost of high interest rates. They must thus be properly structured to remain accessible amid post-disaster financial challenges.

In addition to microfinance, agriculture insurance can help to protect farmers from the financial impacts of disasters. Such programmes have been scaled up in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand via government support in the form of subsidies. In Cambodia, Myanmar and Viet Nam, agricultural insurance is in the pilot phase, and Lao PDR and Malaysia are developing adequate institutional, legislative and regulatory frameworks, and operating models. For large-scale farmers, insurers can offer financial protection as the premium is adequate to cover the costs of pre-acceptance risk inspections, mid-season monitoring inspections and end-of-season crop yield assessment (GIZ, 2022[53]). For subsistence farmers, implementing and assessing losses can be costly and difficult.

Catastrophe bonds offer an alternative means of disaster risk finance

Catastrophe bonds provide an alternative to traditional sources as part of a country’s disaster risk financing menu. CAT bonds securitise disaster risk and transfer it through capital markets. They are attractive to institutional investors due to their low correlation with other financial market movements. The CAT bond market has grown steadily since the 1990s, though growth has been heavily concentrated in the United States and Europe (Figure 2.6). Most countries in ASEAN require better regulatory frameworks for CAT bonds to reach their full potential.

Figure 2.6. Geographical coverage of CAT bonds issued in 1996-2022

% of total issuance

Box 2.1. CAT bond markets are growing in OECD countries

CAT bond markets have experienced significant growth in advanced economies, led by the active participation of the private sector, especially the insurance and reinsurance industries. The cases of successful CAT bond influence in United States, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand and they are indicative of the potential a mature CAT bond market is able to reach.

CAT bond markets arose out of the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (USD 15 billion in insurance losses). CAT bond sponsors in the United States are typically either insurance companies, reinsurers, or state catastrophe funds. The California Earthquake Authority (CEA) formed out the need to bolster resilience against a particular type of disaster to which California is highly prone. Just as in Florida after Hurricane Andrew, private insurers grew concerned about participating in the market after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in California (USD 12.5 billion in insurance losses); state laws mandating disaster insurance coverage as part of standard property insurance led to insurers exiting the market and the state funds were formed to entice them back. The CEA entered the market in 2001 and has made annual issuances since 2014. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) entered the market in 2018 to reinsure the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and has made annual issuances of its own ever since.

Japan’s first CAT bond transaction occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s when a major insurer sought reinsurance for USD 100 million of earthquake risk over ten years. A special purpose reinsurer was created in the Cayman Islands and payout were determined by earthquake severity and location (i.e. using a parametric trigger). The issuance consisted of two tranches and resulted in oversubscription. Thirty-two institutional investors participated, 16 were either mutuals or banks, while different types of insurers, reinsurers and hedge funds comprised the rest. Since then the Japanese national mutual aid system for agriculture co-operatives has entered the market – a CAT bond issued in 2008 paid out in full after the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake – and it has been joined by other insurers, leading to the Tomoni Re CAT bond issued by two insurers jointly in 2022. The joint issuance attracted investors due to the combination of expertise resources and reputations of each party.

The first CAT bond covering risks in Australia was issued in 2006. The issuance by SPV Australis allowed Swiss Re to secure USD 100 million in earthquake and tropical cyclone protection. The bond used a parametric trigger to hasten and simplify potential payouts. The success of this issuance led to another in 2007, but despite these early successes, the CAT bond market in Australia did not begin growth in earnest until 2019. At that time, a large insurer issued a CAT bond that provided AUD 75 million (Australian dollars) in protection against perils common to Australia and New Zealand. The three-year bond represented the first issued by a special purpose reinsurance vehicle (SPRV) domiciled in Singapore. The sponsor chose Singapore as the domicile of the SPRV to reduce transaction costs grant scheme offered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

The Earthquake Commission (EQC), a New Zealand state-owned residential property disaster insurance entity, issued its first CAT bond in 2023 as a third-tier source of funds, allowing EQC to diversify its funding sources. Issued via a Singapore-domiciled SPRV, the CAT bond offers NZD 225 million (New Zealand dollars) of protection against a variety of perils. The bond has a term of four years and uses a per-occurrence indemnity trigger.

The examples are indicative of the growing demand for reinsurance and the willingness of investors to participate. Their diversity also showcases the high degree of flexibility offered by such instruments.

Source: Authors, based on OECD (2024[55]), Fostering Catastrophe Bond Markets in Asia and the Pacific, The Development Dimension.

In order to benefit maximally from CAT bonds, countries need to take the following actions: i) construct a grand design for disaster risk finance; ii) invest in measurement infrastructure and enhance the quality of their disaster data; iii) develop tailor-made catastrophe risk models; iv) enhance capacity building for finance and insurance officials; v) broaden investor bases; vi) construct CAT bonds; vii) prepare distribution schemes for the funds; and vii) develop local-currency bond markets (OECD, 2024[55]).

Investment in measurement infrastructure should be headed by national meteorological or geological agencies. If such agencies are not in place, it would be beneficial for governments to create them. Use of state-of-the-art measurement tools allows for more precise risk assessment, making CAT bonds better tailored to a country’s needs and giving investors increased confidence in participation. These investments could be conceived as part of a larger package of technology investments. Data from the new tools must be stored in accessible databases administered at the national or regional level. Improved data quality will allow for the development of CAT bonds covering more perils or covering perils in a more precise fashion. Major catastrophe risk modellers are currently developing models for perils in the Emerging Asia region. Minimising basis risk is best accomplished through the use of indemnity triggers, but this requires building a national insurance portfolio. Parametric index triggers will help to reduce basis risk.

To use the tools effectively, expertise must be built up. Regular upskilling of policy makers is essential to guide them based on the latest trends and best practices. Training in catastrophe bonds and other insurance-linked securities is offered by private companies, and the fees are often reduced or waived for officials from developing countries. Policy makers should seek to broaden investor bases by encouraging women and people from minority language groups to participate. Doing so would likely require developing targeted training, respecting the different preferences and the need to provide training in local languages (particularly important for countries with large migrant worker populations). Local-currency bond markets must also be developed further. Local-currency bond market growth is facilitated by lower fiscal balances, a deeper banking sector and clear regulations on investment and the tax treatment of financial instruments (including CAT bonds).

Investing in disaster-resilient infrastructure

Natural hazards wreak havoc on crucial infrastructure systems. Half of the world’s disasters occur in Asia and the continent is particularly prone to flooding. Floods in Asia, which account for 70% of all such events globally, cause significant damage to infrastructure, with estimates suggesting that 65% of all flood-related losses are infrastructure related. Asia-Pacific is also among the world’s most seismically active regions due to the presence of several tectonic plate boundaries as well as the Pacific Ring of Fire. The region is frequently exposed to earthquakes, which often cause a secondary wave of disasters, such as tsunamis and landslides, that compound damage to infrastructure. Evaluated more than 30 000 transport and energy infrastructure assets in the region found that nearly three-quarters of these assets are highly exposed to earthquakes (ADB, 2022[56]).

Earthquake-resistant infrastructure and earthquake-proof buildings

Seismic events disrupt the critical services provided by vital public and private infrastructure, resulting in severe economic and socio-economic consequences. Governments and private entities therefore need to consider earthquakes in a multi-hazard context and provide a holistic and systematic risk assessment of built infrastructure and future infrastructure investments to reduce the potential impact of disasters (ADB, 2022[56]). Collaboration between the public and private sectors is essential. Public-private partnerships offer benefits such as enhanced expertise and resources, and increased innovation.

The impact of earthquakes on people and property can be managed and mitigated using appropriate earthquake engineering and earthquake-resistant infrastructure design. The collapse of buildings poses the greatest threat to human life in the event of an earthquake. Private and public entities need to collaborate to implement measures that can prevent earthquake damage to buildings, including earthquake engineering, i.e. the planning, design and construction of new earthquake-resistant buildings; and the repair, strengthening and retrofitting of existing buildings and those damaged by previous earthquakes.

A seismic-resistant design standard for buildings is common practice in most of the world’s regions with frequent seismic activity. Some Emerging Asian countries have adopted laws and building codes to improve seismic resistance in buildings, increasing resilience of infrastructure to earthquakes. Indonesia’s national standard on seismic design was established in 1983 and is regularly improved and updated. The National Building Code of the Philippines, enacted in 1977, provides a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control the design, construction and maintenance of all buildings and structures.

Landslide-resilient infrastructure: Retaining walls

Landslides occur frequently in countries with mountainous terrain, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, and in countries with glaciers and glacial lakes, such as China and India. As climate change brings more frequent and intense rainfall, the occurrence of landslides also increases, and could result in more frequent cascading disasters, such as landslide dams across rivers, affecting areas far downstream. The resilience of infrastructure is key in efforts to mitigate the impact of landslides and improve the safety of communities in high-risk area.

Four main factors impact the resilience of infrastructure to landslides: the depth of the sliding mass; the velocity of the slide; differential movements in lateral zones of a slide; and the potential for progressive or sudden accelerations. These factors are influenced by fluctuations in climatic conditions, which can be short term (i.e. high intensity rainfall) or long term (i.e. a wet season lasting weeks or months). Taking these factors into account for purposes of increasing infrastructure’s landslide resilience involves the selection of an appropriate depth of drainage boreholes or trenches and appropriate construction design.

Retaining walls, an old and simple form of infrastructure, can hold back earth, stabilise slopes and minimise landslides. Innovation has given rise to the development of different forms, such as gravity retaining walls, which depend on their own mass and weight to resist falling over and which hold back land, reducing the risk of landslides. Gravity retaining walls require less excavation, minimising disturbance to other nearby infrastructure and communities. Cantilever retaining walls, the most common type, are reinforced concrete structures in which lateral earth pressure is countered by the cumulative action of total structural members.

Retaining walls are found in most countries in the region. For example, Indonesia built a retaining wall to prevent landslides on the eastern side of the Doho Kediri International Airport platform. In Myanmar, numerous retaining walls have been constructed to protect towns from potential landslides. Some of these include the Daungmyu Creek landslide protection project in Kawlin Township, Sagaing Region which spans the townships of Kawlin and Wuntho and the upgrading of the Chindwin riverbank landslide protection project which includes the townships of Phaungbyin, Kalewa, and Kani.

Concrete seawalls

Concrete seawalls remain a centrepiece in coastal protection due to their structural stability, endurance and capacity to mitigate the impact of rising sea levels, hurricanes, tsunamis and storm surges on coastal cities and towns. Much research has been carried out to improve concrete seawall performance. Recently upgraded seawalls are designed to absorb wave action, prevent coastline erosion and alleviate flooding (Hosseinzadeh et al., 2022[57]). Current innovations in material science, civil engineering and construction technology have produced concrete for the construction of seawalls that is sustainable, durable and resilient. The main concerns in building concrete seawalls include that they remain an artificially built infrastructure and their integration in the overall coastal ecology is typically poor; that the steel that supports the overall structure corrodes over time, which deteriorates the overall structure; and that timely inspection and maintenance of seawalls is often neglected.

In the face of more severe and more frequent disasters, traditionally designed seawalls often fail to offer the desired level of protection, especially during extreme events such as tidal waves, tsunamis and storm surges. Coastal seawalls can also have a negative impact on marine ecosystems. Their installation over existing coastal wetlands and intertidal zones can cause irreversible damage to the overall coastal ecosystem.

However, recently developed seawall structures not only protect shorelines but are also environmentally sustainable. These structures include the integration of nature-based solutions, such as planting mangroves, and design that follows ecological considerations, helping the seawall to act as an artificial habitat for marine life to thrive. An innovative seawall design is the use of non-corrosive steel reinforcements, such as stainless steel and fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) as an alternative to conventional steel rebar. Another cutting-edge seawall design is the use of concrete seawall structures consisting of two vertical walls with a chamber in between, one perforated concrete wall positioned towards the sea, and one solid concrete wall positioned behind. Such design works to mitigate the wave load on the structure and to reduce wave reflection in front of the structure, while also improving the water quality and minimising the negative effects on coastal ecology (Hosseinzadeh et al., 2022[57]).

Dam construction or rehabilitation

Ageing dams have become an emerging global development issue, with tens of thousands of dams having reached or exceeded an “alert” age threshold of 50 years (UNU-INWEH, 2021[58]). At the same time, water infrastructure has become more vulnerable, with increasingly intense and frequent flooding increasing the risk of damage to dams, dikes and levees, posing risks to communities.

In many countries in Emerging Asia, dams built for irrigation and hydropower generation are also critical in mitigating vulnerability to water-related disasters by buffering against floods. Flood control has become a critical function for existing dams in the region and, for some countries, will be a major function for dams that are being planned or are under construction. In addition, dams assist vulnerable countries with water supply management, temporarily storing water during heavy rainfall and releasing water later or in times of drought. This is particularly important given the dramatic changes between the region’s wet and dry seasons.

As in other parts of the globe, the performance of dams in Emerging Asia has declined, posing risks to the expanding downstream communities. This is due to a combination of factors such as the ageing of the infrastructure, backlogs in maintenance, lack of proper instrumentation and monitoring, deficient reservoir operation practices, and inadequate regulatory and operational safety measures (UNESCO, 2020[59]). The consequences of these factors include sedimentation, increased operation and maintenance costs, and increased signs of breakage (UNESCO, 2020[59]). Enhancing the resilience of water infrastructure is a particularly key issue in most developing countries in Emerging Asia.

Challenges in scaling up disaster-resilient infrastructure

The construction of more resilient infrastructure is a critical step towards adapting to climate change. It involves the implementation of zoning, land-use strategies and construction regulations to minimise or mitigate the harm caused by disasters (also discussed below in the section on land planning). In particular, structures like buildings and hospitals should be constructed in areas with a lower disaster risk and built to endure disasters. This section considers the challenges involved in scaling up disaster-resistant infrastructure.

Limited application of disaster risk assessments

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) defines disaster risk assessment as a qualitative or quantitative approach to determine the nature and extent of disaster risk by analysing potential hazards and evaluating existing conditions of exposure and vulnerability. Disaster risk assessments provide information on the likelihood and severity of hazard impact, allowing stakeholders to carry out efficient long-term decision making. They also present opportunities for investment in infrastructure resilience. Whether in the context of small-scale or large-scale projects, city-wide or country-wide planning, improving awareness and understanding of disaster risk is the foundation of an effective assessment of the benefits that come with resilience interventions in infrastructure projects. But in order to reap these benefits and opportunities, disaster risk assessments need to be integrated into development plans, policy plans, investments and planning for programmes, projects and activities. Lack of knowledge and understanding in the execution of disaster risk assessments will result in failure to reach the maximum potential of disaster-resilient infrastructure systems and in missed opportunities to manage risks cost-effectively through appropriate disaster-proofing of the overall built environment (ADB, 2022[56]).

The development of disaster-resilient infrastructure in Emerging Asia currently faces substantial challenges in the realm of risk assessment that impede effective planning and implementation of infrastructure projects. Key determinants, cited in an array of research and reports, include lack of knowledge and expertise, incomplete or outdated data, lack of standardised methodologies and lack of budget to fund the overall operations that support the disaster risk assessment system. While each catastrophe has a unique impact pathway, the interconnectedness and cascading effects of such disasters add a further layer of complexity collectively referred to as “systemic risks”. An emerging challenge that should be highlighted is the limited integration in disaster risk assessments of these systemic risks. The diverse and unpredictable nature of catastrophes increases the challenge of establishing a standardised disaster risk assessment methodology, which leads to difficulties in conducting accurate risk assessments.

While a systemic multi-hazard approach to disaster risk assessment is still at its nascent stage in the region, the application of general standardised risk assessment is also limited. This is due to a combination of factors including lack of assessment capacity, limited expertise and lack of financial resources, defined processes and technologies. Another key challenge is a lack of comprehensive, up-to-date data on historical disaster events; the vulnerability of the existing natural and built environment; and changing climate patterns.

The accuracy of quantitative risk assessments depends on the quality of input data and the validity of applied algorithms and modelling tools. Accurate disaster risk assessments require the development of technical capacities, a long-term process requiring stable funding. A lack of steady financing makes it impossible to overcome key technical issues and modelling methods in disaster assessment (OECD, 2015[52]). In addition, many countries in the region lack the institutions and resources for accurate data collection and processing. The majority of national governments do not systematically collect data related to disasters and leave it to local governments and local satellite ministries, which lack the necessary resources.

Disaster risk assessments in Emerging Asia currently utilise qualitative analysis of a broad range of specifications, such as potential areas of impact and infrastructure damage; however, less than half involve quantitative assessment (ADB, 2022[56]). At the same time, qualitative assessments still require numerical data or semiquantitative methods, such as the attachment of numerical values to descriptive indicators in order to determine the relative likelihood and extent of possible damage and loss.

Finally, the lack of standardised risk assessment methodologies across the region limits the comparison of risk levels and the harmonisation of risk mitigation strategies. A harmonised regional approach to risk assessment is crucial to enable regional co‑operation and information sharing, which would foster a more effective response to common regional risks and disasters.

Limited financing for disaster-resilient infrastructure

Major capital investment and effective financing methods are needed for the construction of disaster-proof electricity grids, public transport systems, irrigation systems, dams, buildings and schools. This requires the holistic collaboration of the government, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. While investments in disaster-resilient infrastructure are currently being pursued in Emerging Asia, these initiatives remain limited, with the public sector contributing the major share of funding. Opportunities for private-sector participation are not maximised, and competing priorities within the national budget limit the scope of government investments.

Disaster-proofing is essential across all types of infrastructure, and this translates into trillions of dollars of investment. Government revenues alone will be insufficient in the long-term. Hence, maximising private sector participation will be crucial to bridge the financing gap. However, attracting private capital to fund disaster- and climate change-resilient infrastructure is difficult, as the benefits will be enjoyed by multiple stakeholders and are hence difficult to quantify in tangible returns for private investors (Ding et al., 2021[60]).

Private-sector participation in infrastructure is mainly through privatisation and public-private partnerships, with financing via banks (OECD/ADBI/Mekong Institute, 2020[61]). Alternative sources of funding may be accessed through technology-enabled financing platforms. An example is crowdfunding, which makes it easier for small projects or businesses to enter the marketplace by providing lower cost of entry to participate (Box 2.2). Tokenisation using blockchain technology can support the development of crowdfunding, as it provides a platform that is less reliant on traditional intermediaries in the flow of funding. When fiat money is converted into tokens, payment, clearing and settlement no longer pass through banks, custodians and clearinghouses, which brings down transaction costs and minimises financial barriers to investor participation (OECD/ADBI/Mekong Institute, 2020[61]).

Another challenge to increasing private-sector participation is the inherent risks of infrastructure as well as high-up front costs, which pose significant impediments. It is therefore crucial for the public and private sectors to collaborate and help develop innovative financial instruments to leverage private capital. The public sector can provide an enabling environment for increased private-sector finance via disclosure requirements, metrics and incentives (Ding et al., 2021[60]). However, bureaucratic hurdles often discourage private-sector participation. Cumbersome administrative processes, complex regulatory frameworks, unclear legal frameworks and slow decision-making impede the timely execution of disaster-resilient infrastructure projects and create a degree of uncertainty for investors. It is therefore crucial to establish streamlined government procedures to expedite the implementation of disaster-resilient infrastructure projects.

Box 2.2. Crowdfunding for infrastructure

Crowdfunding has emerged as a useful tool to mobilise resources and foster multiple stakeholder engagement in disaster-resilient infrastructure. However, the use of crowdfunding remains marginal as a means to finance public infrastructure but, progress in using alternative financing schemes to develop transport, power, and water projects may catalyse the broader use of this platform in financing disaster-resilient public infrastructure in the future.

Crowd support for local government to finance pedestrian bridge. The construction of the 400-metre long Luchtsingel pedestrian bridge in Rotterdam in 2011 was the first crowdfunded public infrastructure project in the world, raising approximately 100 000 euros. The project featured the names of the donors etched on the planks used to construct the bridge and more than 8 000 planks were sold during the fundraising campaign. The outcome of the initiative also became a measure of public support for the project and helped convince the local government to shoulder the remaining project cost which amounted to EUR 4 million.

Crowdfunding and debt to establish solar farms. A town in the Southwest of England also used crowdfunding to bankroll its solar farm projects through the Swindon Borough Council’s campaign. This offered tax-free, interest-earning debt and raised about GBP 1.8 million in five months through the Abundance Investment platform. The crowdfunding helped in the town council’s own capital outlay of GBP 3 million (British pounds) for the solar projects. earmarked to meet the town’s objective of shifting towards renewable energy. Meanwhile, the local government in London also launched “Crowdfund London” in 2014 which has now raised GBP 4.85 million, making it one of the longest-running and largest crowdfunding initiative in the world. Of this amount, GBP 1.8 million came from the mayor’s office and GBP 2.2 million came from the crowd. The funding catered to around 130 projects such as construction and refurbishment of markets, community kitchens, public spaces, gardens and parks, community centres, village halls and small bridges, among others.

Crowdfunding a water purification system. Crowdfunding can catalyse political will to help achieve local projects and may serve as a model for other communities that feel neglected politically yet are also facing more imminent needs for development. As an example, crowdfunding was used to install a water purification system in Branson, Colorado – a remote community close to several springs – which will allow the town to continue to benefit from a pump-free water system for household use and irrigation despite new state standards for water safety. The campaign was able to raise nearly one-third of its USD 100 000 goal through donations from locals and community organisations. It also sought partnership with a local company specialising in filtration, which provided the system for USD 76 000. The crowdfunding initiative not only qualified the project for several government grants to cover the shortfall but also earned the interest of decision makers as the crowdfunding exceeded the matching contribution required.

Crowdfunding to help a marginalised community finance a water infrastructure project. In Buttah Windee, Australia, crowdfunding of a water infrastructure project helped save lives and preserve the liberty of a marginalised community. Unsafe levels of uranium were detected in the water supply in 2009 and led to the displacement of the Aboriginal community. The state government considered the problem too costly to fix and offered to help with the resettlement of the remaining families instead. In response, a local couple reached out to a company that offers a technology based on solar hydropanels to draw water vapour from air. The couple initiated a crowdfunding campaign, but the company later donated the solar panels free of charge upon learning about the community’s dire situation, allowing the Aboriginal community to stay on their ancestral lands, preserving its way of life and traditions. The AUD 26 000 raised in the crowdfunding campaign was diverted to fund the construction of a reverse-osmosis water treatment plant which allowed for further expansion of the safe water supply.

Source: Authors, based on OECD/ADBI/Mekong Institute (2020[61]), Innovation for Water Infrastructure Development in the Mekong Region, The Development Dimension.

Operation and maintenance of disaster-resilient infrastructure

Sustaining the efficiency and effectiveness of disaster-resilient infrastructure throughout its life cycle is also essential. To achieve this, it is critical to consider several key aspects: risk assessment, investment, and operation and maintenance. Risk assessment starts at the early stages of project design and planning and includes identifying and quantifying disaster risks for infrastructure assets using open-source data, risk models, and software (ADB, 2022[56]). Ensuring adequate funding for risk and resilience analysis is critical. This includes evaluating the potential climate-related hazards, vulnerabilities, and impacts that infrastructure assets may face. However, in most cases, preparation budgets tend to be constrained, making it challenging to conduct accurate analyses in project design which would be more cost-efficient in the long term. Investing in project risk assessment, appropriate project design, and examining various engineering options, including nature-based solutions, is another key to ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the infrastructure. Hence, a more proactive approach is needed wherein the appropriate budget is invested upfront to avoid potentially massive downstream costs in operation and maintenance, retrofitting, reconstruction or replacement (UNDRR, 2022[62]).

In addition, operation and maintenance (O&M) approaches that can support disaster resilience before, during and after catastrophic events should be prioritised. Developing economies in the region often lack a well-defined, consistent, standardised O&M framework, which leads to infrastructure O&M being deprioritised.

Various institutional impediments that contribute to this problem. Constrained short-term budgets may drive infrastructure operators to cut maintenance budgets. Limited budget allocations can compromise the O&M system of regular inspection, repair, and upgrades of disaster-resilient infrastructure. In addition, financing mechanisms such debt, equity, or grants can restrict funds for ongoing expenses. This compels infrastructure operators to prioritise capital-intensive repairs, overhauls and reconstruction or new investments over periodic O&M spending (ADB, 2022[56]).

Capacity-building and skills shortages further hinder effective implementation of O&M. Advanced technology and innovation in disaster-resilient infrastructure require continued investment, research and adaptation by infrastructure operators and owners. Governments, private investors and other stakeholders need to collaborate to prioritise the development of an O&M framework to protect disaster-resilient infrastructure at both the project level and the policy level. This includes investing in capacity building for skilled technical staff, who are crucial in ensuring the longevity and adaptability of infrastructure.

Monitoring and measuring the impact of infrastructure projects

Institutionalising a monitoring and evaluation plan for infrastructure projects allows for regular updates as additional climate and socioeconomic vulnerabilities and risks arise. In addition, regular monitoring is important to ensure regular risk assessments and state-of-the-art asset life cycle management of infrastructure projects. This contributes to the effectiveness and longevity of the infrastructure. By continuously assessing structural integrity, environmental conditions, and operational efficiency, stakeholders of disaster-resilient infrastructure projects can detect early signs of malfunction and damage that may compromise resilience. This enables timely interventions such as repairs, reinforcements, or upgrades which minimises the risk of infrastructure failures during disasters. In addition, regular standardised monitoring facilitates data collection on hazard patterns or trends and valuable information into the real-time performance of resilient infrastructure. This helps enable decision-makers to refine risk assessments and enhance disaster preparedness strategies. Through the analysis of monitoring data, engineers and planners can identify areas needing improvement, streamline operational processes, and incorporate lessons learned from past events. Some of the key considerations in the preparation of the monitoring and evaluation plan include the sensitivity of assumptions; a clear and feasible time frame for periodic review; and regular updating to integrate new research technology (ADB, 2022[56]).

Effective collaboration among stakeholders is essential for successful disaster-resilient infrastructure development

Effective collaboration with multiple stakeholders, from local to international, serves as a cornerstone in fortifying disaster-resilient infrastructure. It brings together a diverse range of skills and perspectives which contributes to enriching the decision-making process, project design and planning, and ensuring comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation strategies. In particular, it contributes towards leveraging diverse expertise by harnessing the insights of engineers, architects, urban planners, policy makers, community leaders, and disaster management exports. In turn, stakeholders are able to identify vulnerabilities, prioritise interventions, and design infrastructure solutions that are technically sound, socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable. Engaging multiple stakeholders also facilitates resource mobilisation and cost-sharing, enabling countries to leverage the collective resources and capabilities of diverse partners. This also promotes policy alignment and co-ordination at both national and international levels, ensuring coherence and consistency with international standards in efforts to strengthen disaster-resilient infrastructure. Through platforms such as multilateral agreements, intergovernmental fora, and regional co-operation mechanisms, partners can harmonise regulatory frameworks and share best practices.

Integration of nature-based solutions

With the world facing increasingly complex natural hazards and climate-related challenges, relying solely on grey infrastructure is inadequate to address the risks. The most favourable solutions for adaptation will likely consist of a diverse portfolio of options such as green measures (e.g. wetland or dune restoration), grey measures (e.g. seawalls or dams) and policy measures (e.g. land use zoning). The integration of nature-based solutions (NbS) into disaster-resilient infrastructure development will be a crucial step in protecting society from natural hazards and ensuring a sustainable future. Nature-based solutions harness the inherent resilience of ecosystems to bolster infrastructure against the impact of disasters. Complementing conventional engineering measures such as sea walls and storm channels, NbS can support traditional infrastructure and offer a cost-effective and sustainable approach to building disaster-resilient infrastructure. Nature-based solutions offer an alternative or complementary approaches to grey engineering infrastructure (Table 2.1).

Characteristics	NbS	Grey infrastructure
Time scale	Takes longer for the benefits to materialise	Benefits are immediate after construction
Spatial scale	Typically executed on a larger scale to be effective, encompassing multiple jurisdictions	Typically implemented within individual jurisdictions
Performance reliability	Uncertain performance due to complexity of natural systems	Performance is more predictable
Flexibility	Adaptable to changing environmental conditions as they are part of the natural landscape	More rigid and with limited adaptability as it typically provides a fixed solution for flood management
Sustainability	More sustainable as it involves the restoration of natural ecosystems	Can have negative impacts on the environment, e.g. increased erosion, altered hydrology and destruction of natural habitat, and requires significant maintenance and upgrades over time
Multifunctionality	Provides multiple benefits beyond flood risk reduction	Often has a more singular focus on reducing flood risk and rarely provides additional benefits
Quantification of benefits	Co-benefits are difficult to quantify, e.g. human health and livelihoods, food and energy security, biodiversity	Benefits are easy to quantify, e.g. prevention of damage to assets
Community engagement	Design, implementation, and maintenance involve local communities, hence promote community ownership and resilience	Designed and implemented by external engineers and experts, hence limited community engagement and lack of local ownership

Source: (Molnar-Tanaka and Surminski, 2024[63]), “Nature-based solutions for flood management in Asia and the Pacific”, OECD Development Centre Working Papers No. 351.

Several case studies provide evidence that the net benefits of NbS for climate resilience are significant. For instance, a risk assessment comparing the cost effectiveness of nature-based adaptation across the Gulf of Mexico coast of the United States found that a set of cost-effective adaptation measures (with benefit-to-cost ratios above 1) could prevent up to USD 57-101 billion in losses (Reguero et al., 2018[64]).

Despite the crucial role of NbS in mitigating the risk of disasters and boosting traditional infrastructure to ensure better resilience, opportunities to pursue NbS remain underexplored in Emerging Asia. Although the NbS approach has been gaining recognition in the region recently (Box 2.3).

Box 2.3. Nature-based solutions to flood management in ASEAN

Indonesia’s strategies for flood prevention have relied mainly upon grey infrastructure so far, but acknowledgement of NbS as a complementary option is increasing. For instance, the Indonesian government has designed a programme for Restoring Four Critical Watersheds that will reduce flood impacts by greening 150 000 hectares of land in the provinces of Banten, DKI Jakarta, West Java and North Sumatra. In addition, NbS using a Building with Nature (BwN) approach have been implemented successfully on the Demak coast. Semi-permeable structures made of local brushwood and bamboo were installed in an area where mangroves had been lost due to other development projects. The structures slow currents and trap sediment, preventing the erosion caused by the loss of the mangroves and producing local ecosystems ideal for mangrove re-growth. Unproductive aquaculture ponds were also repurposed into areas for mangrove growth.

The Philippines is developing a Flood Risk Management Master Plan for six priority river basins in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The NbS for the Buayan-Malungon river basin makes “room for the river” by reviving old river channels, removing man-made obstacles, and enhancing the riverbanks with vegetation. Projects in other basins involve wetland restoration and re-routing rivers often obstructed by debris from earthquakes.

Flooding is a major concern in the Mekong region. Plans have been made for a town in Lao PDR that sits on the banks of the Mekong River to restore drainage canals using bioengineering and the natural system of floodgates in the northern part of the town.

Thailand has adopted several NbS in Bangkok such as urban forests, eco-friendly parks, green roofs, and wetlands. The Chulalongkorn Centenary Park slows runoff and allows the collection, treatment, and storage of water to reduce the burden on sewerage during heavy rains. In addition, Bangkok offers a higher floor-area ratio limit to developers if certain NbS are incorporated into building designs.

Finally, the city of Dong Ha, Viet Nam faces frequent flooding despite a system of canals and a drainage basin. NbS proposed would redesign the basin into an attractive green zone that would act as a drainage corridor, water retention facility, landscape recreation area and water and air purifier.

Source: (Molnar-Tanaka and Surminski, 2024[63]), “Nature-based solutions for flood management in Asia and the Pacific”, OECD Development Centre Working Papers No. 351.

Given the complex nature of risks and expected changes, an appropriate combination of tools is required. Relying solely on either NbS or grey infrastructure is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the heightened disaster risk. A combined approach may offer better results in terms of protection, biodiversity and socio-economic benefits. The balanced integration of NbS and grey infrastructure could overcome the limitations of each approach and offer a more effective and sustainable solution for comprehensive disaster risk management.

Preserving and developing infrastructure during and after disasters

The role of infrastructure in disaster risk reduction and management is to lessen the adverse effects of disasters on individuals, property and the environment. Infrastructure can aid in disaster prevention through the provision of early warning systems, evacuation pathways and secure shelters (UN, 2016[65]). It can also assist in reducing the impact of disasters by offering emergency services, medical treatment and supplies of food and water. Furthermore, infrastructure can support recovery efforts by providing temporary accommodation, transport and other vital services. Following a catastrophe, various forms of infrastructure development are required to ensure the resilience and recovery of the impacted region:

Transportation. Rebuilding transport infrastructure emerges as a top priority among the multiple recovery tasks triggered by disasters (Padgett and Tapia, 2013[66]). The reconstruction of transport infrastructure is often addressed in the short-term recovery phase, yet long-term considerations and plans are required for large-scale disasters (Minato and Morimoto, 2012[67]). The inability to rebuild transportation networks can hinder the pace of recovery and reconstruction in other sectors (Mechler, 2016[68]; Yamashita, Watanabe and Shimatani, 2016[69]). Disruptions in the affected regions caused by issues of inaccessibility can hinder the recovery process. Hence, an immediate and rigorous effort is crucial to restore the transportation systems to their normal operations as swiftly as possible (Lou and Zhang, 2011[70]).
Allocating public space for streets, infrastructure and parks. These areas can act as protective barriers during a disaster (Mead, 2022[71]). Furthermore, the United Nations underscores the significance of soft infrastructure in disaster risk reduction and management. This encompasses communication, knowledge and the interaction between authorities and community members. Despite a narrative that advocates for the involvement of people in preparedness planning and risk reduction, community members are rarely genuinely empowered to shoulder this responsibility (UN, 2016[65]).
Advanced warning systems. Infrastructure can encompass systems engineered to give early alerts of impending disasters, enabling individuals to evacuate or implement other safety measures.

Addressing disaster-related migration and improving land-use planning

Migration and displacement are frequently instigated by disasters, climate change and environmental decline2 (IOM, 2023[72]). This has the potential to worsen disparities and increase the likelihood of conflict, particularly in regions with restricted access to services and limited economic prospects. The presence of displaced populations can impact behaviour (such as job searching, interpersonal interactions and conflict) and socio-economic factors (including economic inequality and wealth) in a way that influences social cohesion (World Bank, 2022[73]). Migration and displacement can also bring environmental deterioration. Swift urbanisation or inadequately administered refugee camps and settlements for internally displaced persons (IDPs) may strain limited water, energy and food resources, and give rise to unregulated waste disposal (UNEP, 2016[74]).

Emerging Asia is seeing a rise in disaster-induced migration

Emerging Asian countries have experienced considerable migration and displacement because of natural hazards. From 2010 to 2021, more than 225 million people were displaced across Asia and the Pacific due to disasters linked to natural hazards (ADB, 2022[75]). In just the year 2020, the ASEAN region experienced 405 disaster events, impacting 19.3 million individuals, displacing 2.4 million people and resulting in damage totalling USD 227.4 million (ASEAN, 2022[76]). Such compelled migration, deemed significant, has been on the rise owing to the accelerated impacts of climate change and heightened disaster risk in recent decades (Munawar et al., 2022[77]).

Migration and displacement entail extensive consequences that impact not just the migrants and their families but also their nations of origin and destination. For example, the displacement and relocation of people can cause increased insecurity and fear of displacement among people inhabiting the lands receiving the displaced group (Johnson et al., 2021[78]). Implementing inclusive policies and making developmental investments for forcibly displaced individuals and host communities can alleviate the adverse consequences of displacement and promote social unity. It is crucial to formulate policies addressing these concerns, ensuring that the advantages of migration surpass the associated costs (World Economic Forum, 2022[79]). Governments in Emerging Asia have implemented various policies to deal with disaster-induced migration and displacement. Examples include enhancement of operational and administrative capabilities by Cambodia, incorporating human mobility into disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation in Indonesia and legislating the safeguarding of internally displaced individuals in the Philippines and India.

Policies for addressing disaster-related migration and displacement

Policies regarding disaster-induced migration and displacement include the following:

The establishment of a framework that categorises displacement – mapping and monitoring potential environmental risk areas and adapting to changing regional conditions – would provide a more effective foundation for policy development in Emerging Asia. Improving hazard mapping in disaster-vulnerable areas through frameworks that include both disaster probability and damage severity can help to identify which areas should be prioritised. To map localised disaster risk, insurance rate maps may be consulted where available.
Governments should adopt proactive development policies to tackle potential displacement impacts resulting from climate change, with a focus on strengthening coping capacities, adaptation and sustainability. This entails incorporating resilience strategies into programmes and projects. It is essential to promote the integration of environmental policies and incorporate them into relief, recovery and development programmes during conflicts and forced displacement.
The policy focus on social and community resilience and adaptation, especially concerning the social dynamics of resettlement, needs further refinement and expansion. Many countries in the region, such as Cambodia, Viet Nam, the Philippines, Indonesia and Lao PDR, lack sufficient financial and technological resources, infrastructure and capacity for effective mitigation of and response to climate-induced disasters leading to displacement.
Community-focused interventions are particularly relevant for displaced and economically vulnerable communities, especially in Cambodia, Viet Nam, the Philippines, Indonesia and Lao PDR. From a programme perspective, such an approach involves enhancing adaptation and resilience measures and fostering the development of appropriate funding mechanisms to support protection and assistance.
It is crucial to promote the integration of environmental policies and responses in relief, recovery and development programmes during conflicts and forced displacement. Resilient ecosystems play a significant role in reducing vulnerability to natural hazards and contributing to human well-being and sustainable development. Strengthening environmental protection and post-disaster rehabilitation is thus essential. Exploring international partnerships for financial and technological support may be one avenue to achieve these goals (Islam and Khan, 2018[80]).
Governments should incorporate climate-change adaptation strategies into their disaster management policies. Few laws and policies currently address disaster-induced displacements and related issues, and there is scope for improvement of existing frameworks. For example, the Chinese government has formulated more than 60 laws and regulations on topics such as natural disaster events, accidental disaster events, public health events and social security (Zhe et al., 2016[81]). These laws could be reassessed and fortified to ensure they sufficiently tackle the issue of disaster displacement.
Governments should encourage community involvement in disaster management. Local communities should be included in decision-making processes as they have a superior understanding of their vulnerabilities and capacities. Policies should guarantee consideration of the requirements of the most susceptible sections of the population, such as the elderly, women, children and people with disabilities, in all phases of disaster management.

Disasters have a significant impact on land-use patterns

Natural hazards, which can lead to shifts in land-use patterns, have a substantial impact on land-use planning in Emerging Asian countries, and can also change farming patterns. In the Philippines, for example, Infanta, Quezon experienced four consecutive typhoons in December 2004 (Unding, Violeta, Winnie and Yoyong). Consequently, while farming decreased in general, production of cattle, chicken, carabao (water buffalo) and pork increased, and farmers changed from vulnerable crops like rice and bananas to more hardy crops like coconut and fast-growing root crops (Eugenio et al., 2014[82]). In Indonesia, on the Banda Aceh coast, the 2004 tsunami wore away the shoreline, drastically changing wetlands from fertile fish-farming zones to deserted lake areas. The total area of aquaculture shrank from 1 346 hectares (ha) in 2004 to 816 ha in 2011 and 787 hectares in 2017. In contrast, the lagoon area grew from 241 ha in 2004 to 499 ha in 2011 before decreasing slightly to 423 hectares in 2017.

Comprehensive land-use planning is crucial for identifying the goals of communities in disaster-prone areas. Such plans can help to direct development away from vulnerable land, lay the foundations for space acquisition and nature conservation campaigns, and encourage the utilisation of natural topography for disaster mitigation. Localised hazard mitigation plans can help to identify areas where measures are needed and provide an opportunity to work with communities to find perceived vulnerabilities and take them into account. While risk assessment lies at the core of planning efforts, it often focuses too much on the likelihood of disasters alone, not considering the vulnerabilities of specific regions and the severity of a potential disaster’s impact (Saunders and Kilvington, 2016[83]).

Planning for more efficient land-use as disaster risk increases

Numerous global frameworks, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, have underscored the significance of integrating land-use planning into development issues, climate change issues and disaster risk management strategies, respectively (Shaw and Banba, 2017[84]). Such integration becomes increasingly important as climate change increases the risk of natural disasters. Recommendations on improving the efficiency of land use for disaster resilience encompass the following topics:

Alterations in land-use. The process of urbanisation has transformed agricultural land, forests and extensive coastal areas into built environments. Due to the pressure of economic growth, these changes have been quite swift, sudden and, in most cases, unplanned. This has created new disaster exposures by subjecting the built assets and infrastructures to various types of natural hazards, whether in coastal, mountain or river basin areas. Urbanisation could also increase disaster vulnerability. For example, soil artificialisation reduces water infiltration and increases runoff, leading to higher flood risk in developed areas. In view of such alterations in land use, and in the face of evolving disaster risks, it is important to provide a proactive and sustainable approach to reducing vulnerability and enhancing resilience through strategic planning, community engagement and the integration of ecosystem-based approaches.
Regulations after disasters. Following a disaster, new land-use regulations may be imposed to steer reconstruction efforts towards resilient, safe and sustainable development. By establishing guidelines that prioritise risk reduction, environmental conservation and community engagement, these regulations contribute to the creation of disaster-resilient communities that can withstand future challenges and changes. Specific measures vary by region. For example, in coastal regions, a strict coastal land-use regulation with strict boundary conditions is typically imposed or reimposed after a disaster. Coastal land-use regulations are essential tools for managing development, protecting ecosystems and ensuring the sustainable use of coastal resources. By balancing economic development with environmental conservation, such regulations contribute to the long-term health and resilience of coastal areas. In urban areas, new urban development zones can be formed post-disaster. Urban development zones may incorporate environmentally sustainable practices to minimise the environmental and ecological impact of future disasters. This can include green building standards, energy-efficient infrastructure and the preservation or restoration of natural green spaces within the urban environment. In mountain areas, strict slope regulations can be introduced after disasters. Such regulations can play a crucial role in balancing development with environmental protection, ensuring the safety of communities and preserving the unique ecological and cultural characteristics of mountain regions.
Land-use management. Land-use management is a comprehensive approach that seeks to balance competing demands on land resources while promoting sustainability, resilience and the well-being of communities and ecosystems. It involves strategic planning, policy development and regulatory frameworks to guide land-use decisions in a manner that aligns with broader societal goals and values. Sustainable land-use requires supervision of the use and development of land resources, in both urban and rural environments, in order to ensure their best possible competing use in different economic sectors including agriculture, forestry, water resource management, industrial development, housing development and more.
Risk-sensitive land-use planning. This is a widely acknowledged non-structural risk mitigation measure with the potential to avoid exposure in the most hazardous zones and to reduce exposure and vulnerability over time in already urbanised areas. Land-use planning can contribute to disaster mitigation through the strategic use of land resources and the evaluation of development applications based on the adopted plan. Regulatory approaches could also include the use of zoning to prevent development altogether; to curb overdevelopment; or to implement requirements to minimise vulnerabilities. Changing the zoning of disaster-vulnerable areas and implementing restrictions on development can help to redirect new development to safer areas and provide the space necessary for resilience measures like nature-based solutions. It should be ensured that any development that does take place in a vulnerable area does not cause adverse effects on pre-existing development. Building elevation can also be regulated for new properties as part of the recovery process after flood events.
Restrictions on development. Restrictions can be implemented to prevent further settling of vulnerable areas. In areas of unrestricted development, bulk regulations may be implemented to set maximum land-plot coverage, minimum building setbacks and requirements for area ratios to ensure that an adequate portion of each land plot remains open space.
Property buy-outs and acquisition of open land. Such actions may be considered to support owners of damaged properties, establish and safeguard buffer zones, and remove vulnerable land from the development market. While the cost of acquisition campaigns can be prohibitively high, some disaster prevention programmes may generate revenues that can be used to repay their own cost. An example is revenues from stormwater utilities built on acquired land.
Relocation of infrastructure. Relocating damaged or destroyed infrastructure away from disaster-vulnerable areas can be the best way of preventing repeat damage. However, the restoration of infrastructure is often critical to the post-disaster recovery process, and the use of public assistance funding has to be balanced between restoration and relocation projects.

Developing disaster-related technology

Deaths and property losses due to disasters can be reduced by providing timely and accurate information for exposed populations and assets, and environmental factors in disaster risk. Such information is increasingly becoming available via recent technologies such as meteorological and Earth Observation satellites, geographical information systems (GIS), communication satellites and satellite-based navigation systems, coupled with modelling and analysis. These technologies help stakeholders to analyse the risk of disasters and develop contingency plans and risk management policies for disaster relief.

Various technologies are available to mitigate disaster risk

Policy makers in Emerging Asia can explore a range of technologies for use in disaster risk reduction and management. They include the following:

Resident-engaged disaster risk mapping

Resident-engaged disaster risk mapping is a tool that allows a community to assess its vulnerabilities and prepare for disasters. The risk maps include all significant buildings that could be affected during a disaster, such as schools and hospitals, as well as farmland, roads and other infrastructure. They also include hazardous features such as volcanoes, flood-prone areas and dry areas that are susceptible to fire. Resources such as shelters and fire stations are also mapped to facilitate quick response to a disaster (UNDRR, 2004[85]). Disaster risk mapping helps to improve villagers’ recognition of hazards and risks in their communities. It helps them to prepare for potential dangers and encourages them, in the event of disaster, to act based on the information on the map. In many countries, community risk mapping is mainly provided by professional institutions. Because such mapping is costly and complex, it is difficult to put in place countrywide. Resident-engaged mapping is used for disaster risk reduction in only a few countries in Emerging Asia: China, India and Indonesia.

Early warning systems (EWS)

Early warning systems can alert people to the imminent prospect of weather-related extreme events such as heavy rain, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis, heatwaves, coastal storms, fires and landslides. Such systems are currently used in most countries of Emerging Asia (UNDRR, 2006[86]). However, they are not fully operational in some countries for reasons such as insufficient training of practitioners, malfunctioning equipment or lack of community awareness. An early warning system is an integrated system of hazard forecasting and monitoring; disaster risk assessment; communication and preparedness activities; and processes that enable individuals, communities, governments, businesses and others to take timely action to reduce disaster risk in advance of hazardous events. Early warning systems for climate and weather-related disasters are evolving thanks to the development of technologies such as Earth Observation systems. Creation of an early warning system for all is a goal to achieve in the next phase. An intergovernmental early warning system should go beyond local systems to encompass observations from the entire world, with international exchanges of observations and global numerical weather prediction.

Information and communications technology

Cutting-edge information and communications technology (ICT) is being used in a few Emerging Asian countries. For example, in the Philippines, in August 2023, the Office of Civil Defence allocated 22 satellite communication kits sourced from a private-sector firm to strengthen the nation’s disaster response and reporting capabilities. As the kits deliver high-speed internet via satellite, they can allow precise communications and reporting for critical government functions even when the normal telecommunications network is down, regardless of region. Sentinel Asia is an initiative to use a satellite for disaster management support in the Asia-Pacific region that was first proposed in 2005 at the Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum (APRSAF) and later accepted. Under Sentinel Asia, the data acquired from the satellite are combined with near-real-time internet dissemination methods and Web-GIS mapping tools to provide visualisation of disaster impacts on the Sentinel Asia website, helping improve the speed and accuracy of disaster preparedness and early warning, and establish rescue or rehabilitation plans.

Disaster management platforms

Platforms for crisis management play a key role during disasters, facilitating networking between government and regional disaster management officers, and between people in need and rescue teams. For example, China’s National Natural Disaster Management System (NNDIMS) is a reporting platform that can manage information regarding natural disaster loss, disaster relief and on-site multimedia data. Beyond national-level platforms, intergovernmental and international platforms have been developed to enhance co‑operation among countries through exchange of knowledge and past experiences.

Unmanned aerial vehicles

As climate impacts increase, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as drones, have become a popular technology for mapping out future geohazard risks. Drones can be used for orthophotos (photographs that allow for distortion-free measurement) and topographical maps that are more accurate than those delivered by satellite-based monitoring systems. These images can be used for creating a rescue plan. Drones can also restore public networks, deliver emergency supplies through airdrops and accomplish many other activities in hard-to-reach places. In China, UAV sensing technology is currently used for disaster rescue operations, as well as for environmental research and predicting landslides.

Social media

Social media can be a useful tool to support crisis management thanks to five key traits: collectivity, connectedness, completeness, clarity and collaboration. In terms of disaster management, social media are mainly used in the gathering and dissemination of information, disaster planning and training, and collaborative problem solving and decision making (Chan, 2013[87]). Via social media, shared documents such as Google Sheets or Tencent can be used for information-gathering purposes.

Use of the latest technologies for disaster resilience is limited in the region

New technologies that can strengthen disaster risk management capacity

While early warning systems are used in many countries, the level of technological maturity or performance differs by country. Reasons for these disparities can include lack of demonstration by practitioners beforehand, malfunctioning of monitoring or detection devices, negligence in the management of equipment, communities’ lack of awareness of the system, or lack of recognition of its significance. For instance, a flash flood generated by glacial lakes caused serious damage in North Sikkim, India in October 2023. The monitoring system failed as one of the sensors installed in 11 glacial lakes malfunctioned and did not generate any data. Recently developed advanced technologies with the potential to bolster disaster risk management capacity are not yet fully utilised in Emerging Asia. The use of UAVs during or after disasters are limited by the small number of drones or as it is still on the pilot phase in Southeast Asian countries (FAO, 2017[88]; Widiatmojo et al., 2023[89]). They include the following:

Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, such as cloud computing, broadband wireless networks and devices with sensors, can be used to alleviate damage from a disaster. The Internet of Things refers to the collective network of devices or systems that connect and exchange data with each other. IoT technologies are real-time systems and enable automation of early warning systems. For instance, tree sensors can detect outbreaks of fire by testing temperature, moisture and carbon dioxide levels (ITU, 2019[90]).
Drones, which were initially developed for military purposes, include unmanned aerial or underwater vehicles. Drones can aid disaster management by reaching inaccessible places and detecting things imperceptible to humans. Small aerial drones were deployed to search for survivors after Hurricane Katrina struck the United States in 2005. More recently, drones conducted aerial surveys of disaster-affected areas of Vanuatu after Cyclone Pam struck in 2015 (Meier and Soesilo, 2015[91]).
Search-and-rescue robots were first used to assess the wreckage of the World Trade Center in September 2001. Since then, more than 50 deployments of robots for disaster use have been reported (ITU, 2019[90]). Japan is a pioneer in the use of robots in disasters. Japan’s “Little Sunfish” swimming robot, unveiled in 2017, was used for underwater probes of the core of the Fukushima reactor, which was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami in 2011. Furthermore, a Japanese company developed a disaster response robot equipped with 3D sensors and hand grippers for search-and rescue.
Big data created by sensors, mobile phones and internet activities is still mostly used for commercial purposes, but it has the potential for disaster risk management. A telecommunications company research team used mobile phone data to monitor population movements and communication patterns during flooding in Mexico in 2014 (Frías-Martínez, 2016[92]). However, challenges remain when using big data given the possibility of false information, non-representativeness or data capacity management issues.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is potentially available for predicting earthquakes or accelerating recovery and response times (Box 2.4). AI, which imitates human intelligence, has become highly proficient at predictions, identification and classification (ITU, 2019[90]). During a major earthquake in Nepal in 2015, relief groups used pre- and post-disaster imagery, crowdsourced data analysis and machine learning to identify disaster locations. AI has also been deployed to analyse real-time information from social media. Artificial Intelligence for Digital Response is an open-source platform capable of processing a large number of tweets and other social media posts related to disasters and other emergencies.
Blockchain technology was first used for disaster management in the aftermath of the 2010 Haitian earthquake to facilitate managing overfull information coming from many data sources. The blockchain-distributed ledger system and chain of verified records could play a significant role in ameliorating information control or facilitating fundraising activities that accept cryptocurrencies (Harmes, 2018[93]). Crowdfunding and tokenisation are already used in several countries in Emerging Asia (OECD/ADBI/Mekong Institute, 2020[61]).

Box 2.4. The use of AI in disaster risk reduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) can play a significant role in optimising disaster response and reducing resource waste, assessing damage, and contributing to the design of recovery plans.

Big data and AI are already used in disaster risk reduction. For example, a Japan-led programme used satellite data to develop floodplain maps of Bangladesh during the monsoon season with areas, depths, and flood durations. The programme focused on border regions with India, highlighting the benefit of satellite-based analysis for addressing cross-border disasters (Kwak, 2017[94]). The US state of California launched a pilot programme to detect forest fires using AI in 2023 (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2023[95]; Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2023[96]; UC San Diego, 2023[97]). AI can detect differences in satellite images of a specific location over time, such as signs of smokiness, and thermal cameras can identify hotspots, while remotely piloted aircraft are able to offer rapid mapping of existing wildfires and a combination of Big Data and AI can help predict expected behaviour, so firefighters and safety officials can make optimal choices.

AI-equipped devices with response capabilities (such as firefighting robots) can also help contain a disaster promptly after it begins and evacuate people from dangerous areas (Pizzuto, 2023[98]; Agurbash, 2023[99]). These devices have the potential to be adapted to respond to other disaster types. The 2023 Maui wildfires provide a further example: The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) developed a software tool called “Rapid Analytics for Disaster Response” (RADR) and used it to provide an assessment of the damage caused by the Maui fire and to predict areas at risk for spread. RADR used AI to evaluate Big Data, large volumes of data originating from multiple sources (vegetation, fuel, and weather), integrating the information into a cohesive picture for policy makers, providing a fire spread risk map (Ashby, 2023[100]).

In response to the rapid proliferation of AI for a variety of applications, the OECD has founded the OECD AI Policy Observatory to help countries “manage risks and reap benefits” of AI, while acting as a global policy hub that unites stakeholders (OECD, 2023[101]). In 2019, the OECD also adopted the OECD AI Principles based on sustainable development, human-centred values, transparency, security, and accountability, among other things (OECD, 2019[102]).

Source: Authors.

Policies in supporting technology for disaster risk reduction

To drive disaster risk reduction and resilience, governments must build capacities utilise ICT and key technologies (UN and UNDRR, 2013[103]). To achieve the successful adoption of disaster-related new technologies, governments can adopt the following policies:

Research and development (R&D) policies. Governments can provide various types of support for R&D investment in technologies that can be used for disaster risk reduction and management. Although the price of equipment such as drones or robots has dropped, it is still costly for many developing countries. Policies to spur R&D in advanced technologies include fiscal and financial incentives, such as intergovernmental or government-to-company grants, tax incentives, loans, tariff exemptions for infrastructure equipment, bonds or subsidised services. The most popular policy instrument is direct or indirect grants or funding. Funding for innovation can be implemented through grants or by establishing and/or funding public incubators to offer seed funding to private-sector companies for pilot projects. An example of a public incubator is South Korea’s Disaster-Safety Industry Technology Commercialisation Project, which assists private R&D projects supporting the development of disaster-related technologies (Ministry of the Interior and Safety of the Republic of Korea, 2022[104]). Tax incentives to promote R&D investments will encourage investment in new technologies. They include tax credits, which reduce the tax liability of a company for certain R&D expenses, and tax deductions for R&D costs, called full expensing (Wu et al., 2022[105]).
Open- and fair-trade policies. International open- and fair-trade policies contribute to innovation by improving access to foreign markets and increasing competition, which encourages firms to invest more in R&D. For example, the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement is an international treaty that ensures that regulatory measures are transparent, non-discriminatory and not overly trade restrictive; it has promoted trade liberalisation and innovation of digital technologies (WTO, 2020[106]). Other policies that prevent the abuse of dominant positions, anti-competitive behaviour and technology lock-in should also be considered (WTO, 2020[106]).
Policies to increase use of new technologies. Governments should enact policies that strengthen their capacity to deploy and provide access to new technologies. They could begin by constructing a basic structure that facilitates access to wireless and telecommunications technologies across the country. It is estimated that 2 to 4 billion people in Emerging Asia have no internet access. Policies that promote competition will help to reduce access charges and enable more people to take advantage of such technologies (Bleiberg and West, 2015[107]). Governments can also provide or incentivise the provision of digital public goods such as open-source software, open data, AI models, standards and content that make digital public infrastructure an operational reality (UN, 2020[108]). Financial support can incentivise the conversion of digital private goods into digital public goods, while governments can also directly provide public digital goods such as open government data. Formation of human capital and support for education is another key area for government policy action. In particular, education in the STEM subjects – science, technology, engineering and mathematics – has been shown to boost innovation. Governments should also encourage industry-academia collaboration, while policies to relax legal and regulatory requirements for new technologies like drones would stimulate technological research. Finally, promoting international co‑operation is an important role of government in speeding technical advancement. Governments should actively participate in global research projects. An example of international co‑operation, the 2nd ASEAN-Japan Public Private Seminar on Innovative Policies and Technologies for disaster risk reduction, took place in October 2023.

In summary, there are several key requirements for the successful deployment of disaster-related new technologies: i) resilient and continuously improving telecommunications infrastructure, including mobile internet coverage and smartphone penetration; ii) technical skills for the use of AI and spatial analysis tools; iii) access to data and software; iv) human capital formation and user education; and v) regulatory adaptation, with new regulatory frameworks to facilitate early acceptance of new tools.

Strengthening disaster risk reduction training and education

Disaster risk reduction education is on the rise in Emerging Asia

Given the rapidly increasing frequency and intensity of disasters, disaster-prone countries are paying far more attention to the role of disaster risk reduction education. Disaster risk reduction education should be integrated into the curriculum of mandatory schooling, and training sessions for teachers and administrators in developing practical learning materials and delivering such courses should be offered. Beyond formal schooling, disaster risk reduction education also includes teaching and learning activities targeted to the public and specific communities. Community-based education mainly focuses on transferring information via media such as radio, television, mobile phones, flyers, and banners. Further efforts to encourage communities’ participation may include conferences and workshops where locals can communicate with experts. Many countries in Emerging Asia, have already implemented national education frameworks to strengthen public knowledge bout disasters and enhance coping capabilities. The majority of the region’s countries have integrated disaster risk reduction education into existing curricula or extracurricular activities, while various other disaster preparedness and response programmes have been launched to improve public awareness at the societal level (Table 2.2). Such programmes can include courses, rehearsal of response plans, knowledge contests, exhibitions, workshops and seminars, and can be broadcast via television, radio and social media to disseminate basic knowledge on disaster reduction.

Country/region	Initiation year	Name of initiative	Goals
India	2004	Disaster Management Curriculum in Class V, VIII, IX, X, XI	Integrating disaster management curriculum which includes basic concepts of the most commonly occurring disasters
Thailand	2015	Comprehensive School Safety (CSS)	Provision of teacher training to support teachers to design disaster risk reduction activities in schools
	2023	Implementation of Disaster Education under National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Plan 2021-2027 via MOU between Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation and Ministry of Education	Developing disaster risk reduction curriculum and promoting disaster risk reduction activities in schools to create public awareness among students, teachers, administrators, and support staff.
	2023	Thai Network for Disaster Resilience (TNDR)	Sharing best practices for disaster risk reduction among experts from 17 universities in Thailand
Indonesia	2019	Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana (SPAB)	Education in prevention and management of disasters to be delivered via educational institutions; such as through integration of disaster risk reduction education into K-13 curriculum
China	2024	Student Safety Education Campaign	An educational campaign to strengthen risk preparedness and self-protection awareness among primary school and secondary school students, including fire safety, traffic safety and first-aid training
Philippines	2013	K-to-12 curriculum	Inclusion of Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Education into school curriculum
ASEAN	2015	ASEAN Common Framework on School Safety	Ensuring safe learning facilities and reinforcing school disaster management capacities

Source: Authors’ compilation based on national sources

Challenges in disaster education require policies to address them

Countries in Emerging Asia face challenges in providing efficient education for students, the public, and other stakeholders due to the diverse nature of each locality’s geographical conditions and socio-economic and cultural background that cannot be accommodated in a uniform national curriculum. Regional context should be fully considered when implementing education and training programmes to maximise the efficiency for students in the application of knowledge acquired from courses and activities. In countries susceptible to earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, such as Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, which lie near the Pacific Ring of Fire, education should be accessible to communities in remote and hard-to-reach areas. Cultural diversity and language barriers, as well as lack of co-ordination among governmental and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), can also hinder effective disaster risk reduction education.

Schools need clear policies for successful implementation of disaster risk reduction education

Several countries in Emerging Asia, such as Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia and the Philippines, have already integrated disaster risk reduction education into their school curricula or are in the process of doing so, but such integration is not universal in these countries due to a lack policies declaring disaster risk reduction education to be mandatory. Countries elsewhere offer examples of better integration of disaster risk reduction education in schools. For instance, Japan makes it compulsory for educational institutions at all levels to develop disaster risk reduction education (Wongphyat and Tanaka, 2020[109]). The curriculum not only covers knowledge about natural disasters and how to respond to them, but also focuses on building skills that are required for survival in those emergencies. In the United States, disaster preparedness exercises such as tornado drills are often implemented in schools, while Australia’s disaster preparedness education in schools puts an emphasis on bushfire awareness.

Beyond clear policies, the successful implementation of disaster risk reduction education in schools requires systematic management. The government should set overarching, clear and mandatory policies for disaster risk reduction education at the national level that outline specific requirements for disaster preparedness in schools, including curriculum content, teacher training and emergency response protocols. In developing a comprehensive framework for disaster risk reduction education, national governments are responsible for setting learning objectives and defining key components of learning materials. On the other hand, implementation of the framework should be adapted to local contexts. This approach allows local government to tailor disaster risk reduction education programmes to specific regional risks and needs. Mandatory legal and regulatory enforcement of disaster risk reduction education, which could include penalties for non-compliance or rewards for compliance, should be accompanied by the allocation by the central government of an adequate budget in order to incentivise local governments or schools to prioritise implementation of disaster risk reduction education.

Finally, disaster risk reduction education policies must ensure that remote villages and islands receive the necessary support and resources. In countries where the predominant language differs by region; policy makers may consider strategies such as supplying online courses or establishing mobile training organisations which offer multilingual support in order to offer equal opportunities nationwide. In conclusion, the success of disaster risk reduction education relies on a well-balanced approach with clear and centralised policies, enforced regulations and inclusivity.

Disaster risk reduction education content should be rich, balanced, locally relevant and updated regularly

When disaster risk reduction education is implemented in schools, an imbalance between knowledge and action in education can lead to a gap between theory and practice during disaster events. Furthermore, the quality of the education declines when textbooks have poor or outdated content, or when unified learning materials do not consider regional aspects. In Emerging Asia, geographical and cultural diversity have slowed implementation of disaster risk reduction education or hampered its performance. In India, for example, it has been challenging to develop a uniform educational curriculum given the country’s large population and diverse terrain and weather conditions, coupled with an overall lack of direction at the national level. Greater efforts and attention are needed in India to overcome the reluctance of state and local governments to implement disaster risk reduction education.

Indonesia allows schools to develop the syllabus and learning materials for disaster risk reduction education based on guidelines provided by the Curriculum Centre, a unit under the Ministry of Education. Schools can consider the local context, including locally specific risks, local culture and the needs and conditions of learners (Pandey, 2007[110]).

In Japan, local approaches are encouraged, and the autonomy of each region is assured in textbook updates. Disaster risk reduction education in Japan is also content-rich, as it includes not only theoretical knowledge but also action in the form of evacuation drills and training. In New Zealand, where evacuation drills have been held in schools for at least a century, casualties were avoided during the onset of the 1987 Bay of Plenty earthquake because students had been taught to crouch under their tables.

Although customised textbooks based on the vulnerabilities of each region are uncommon, they are recently attracting much attention, as they may address region-specific vulnerabilities intensively, which may improve outcomes of disaster risk reduction education. Such textbooks are especially recommended for countries facing disaster risks that differ by region. Once a central government has built the foundation and issued guidelines for the curriculum, local governments or schools should tailor textbooks accounting for regional factors. Both the central government and local authorities should ensure that learning materials are updated regularly, for example with recent cases or research on the impacts of climate change. Such revisions should be frequent to ensure that disaster risk reduction education delivers precise and practical knowledge related to disaster preparedness and responses that reflects the current disaster risk profile at both the local and national level.

Beyond being based on up-to-date textbooks, curricula should be complemented by active learning methods including simulations, drills, role-playing, games and contests. These practical experiences will enable students to apply the knowledge acquired from lecture-based education.

Assessment of disaster risk reduction education performance is essential

The quality of disaster risk reduction education suffers when there is a lack of evaluation and monitoring of programmes. In India, for instance, the absence of an assessment tool has caused inefficiencies and a lack of improvement in content (Annan, 2022[111]). Indonesia faces the same issue for lack of a proper assessment tool.

An example of good disaster risk reduction education assessment is offered by the Philippines, where teaching effectiveness was evaluated and observation forms to evaluate teachers were developed by the Department of Education during its Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in the Education Sector project (Selby and Kagawa, 2012[112]).

To measure progress on implementation of disaster risk reduction education policies, an efficient and multifaceted evaluation and monitoring system is needed. Assessments by expert groups should consider the capability of teachers and the effectiveness of training or education. Countries need to consider several factors in developing an efficient performance assessment framework. The authorities should first decide what specific outcomes are expected from disaster risk reduction education initiatives and what an assessment should aim to measure. They should then determine indicators to quantify the effectiveness of disaster risk reduction education, (e.g. number of schools participating, the frequency of training for teachers, student performance in courses or activities, and the incorporation of local disaster risk knowledge into educational materials). Qualitative indicators should also be considered, such as interviews to assess the opinions of students or teachers.

Authorities should also ensure that there are adequate tools for data collection and analysis. This might encompass surveys, interviews and document analysis instructions for the qualitative assessment of textbooks. The evaluation framework should involve experts and stakeholders such as teachers, school administrators, students and community members. Self-assessment tools can be used to evaluate disaster risk reduction education efforts and capture weak points in curricula or practical activities. Such tools can help stakeholders to make informed decisions to enhance their disaster preparedness. Self-assessment might also be carried out by peer review, unified checklists provided by the authorities and an online feedback system. In summary, the role of government is as follows: setting the goals of disaster risk reduction education initiatives, developing indicators for quantification, arranging tools for data analysis, involving a range of stakeholders in multidimensional evaluation and providing measures for self-assessment.

Regular training sessions should be provided for school staff and the general public

School staff not only convey critical information about natural hazards, but when a disaster strikes, they are often first responders in schools. Disaster risk reduction education thus requires the provision of regular training sessions for teachers regarding appropriate disaster responses. Furthermore, teachers must be able to convey updated information and ensure accurate knowledge transfer.

Countries in Emerging Asia that already provide teacher training programmes include Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. The content of the training is not sufficient, however, given the multifaceted characteristics of disasters and of the areas where schools are located. For instance, even though training on evacuation procedures is provided to school staff members, few have experienced disasters or been trained on disaster-related themes and topics (Amri et al., 2017[113]; Kawasaki et al., 2022[114]).

The ASEAN Co-ordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre) has been conducting disaster risk reduction and response training programmes and initiatives. It currently offers the ACE Programme, which aims to prepare future leaders for disaster management. The goal of the curriculum is to enhance the knowledge, skills and behaviour of participants as humanitarian experts, multistakeholder collaborators, result-oriented managers and effective leaders. Participants interact with experts in the field and experienced leaders to explore the application of concepts and practice in their national context.

Elsewhere, Japan offers teacher professional development opportunities in disaster risk reduction education, with disaster prevention education seminars, courses to foster advisors, seminars for teachers in charge of mental care and seminars for science teachers in co-operation with meteorological observatories and crisis and environment management policy institutes. Türkiye’s Ministry of Education sponsored a Basic Disaster Awareness Instructor Training Programme, with support from USAID, which offered teachers a distance learning course as a prerequisite to applying for Master Instructor Training. Teachers who received the week-long training delivered a one-day training to more than 15 000 schoolteachers and school administrators, which led to extracurricular seminars for more than 5 million students, teachers and parents by 2005 (Petal, 2008[115]).

Disaster risk reduction education training should be mandated by policies that can be integrated into professional development requirements and teacher certificate curricula. Financial support from central or local government is required for developing training programmes and materials, and for hiring highly trained experts who can convey in-depth knowledge to teachers. Public-private partnerships are crucial to enhancing resource pooling and expertise-sharing for disaster risk reduction education training. This partnership would bring the strengths of both sectors into disaster risk reduction education training.

Government-financed private organisations with expertise in emergency response can play a key role in disaster risk reduction education. An example is South Korea’s Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), which is comprised of local public and private organisations such as fire departments, emergency rescue and relief teams, the Red Cross, civic groups, private volunteer groups, religious organisations, private medical teams, etc. The CERT educates volunteers who participate in disaster response.

Regular disaster risk reduction education for communities is also essential in improving preparedness for natural disasters. Policies that encourage programmes such as community workshops, public awareness campaigns and seminars with experts are needed. Central and local financial support should extend to these community training programmes to ensure that they are accessible to all residents in the region and target citizens who are especially vulnerable to disasters such as children, the elderly and people with disabilities.

Disaster prevention learning facilities and digital literacy improvement programmes are useful

Several countries, especially those that are prone to natural hazards, have established disaster prevention learning facilities run by the public sector. These facilities offer interactive and realistic experiences where individuals learn practical skills, such as evacuation procedures or how to use fire extinguishers properly. They also help individuals to understand the importance of preparedness, in terms of both knowledge and practical skills, to protect themselves during disasters.

A significant project in Emerging Asia is the ASEAN Safe Schools Initiative (ASSI), which aims to make children more resilient to disasters by making schools safe and secure. This initiative is implemented by the ASEAN Secretariat in co‑operation with various civil society organisations and is supported by the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO) and Australian Aid. However, disaster prevention learning facilities are not yet widely considered as a tool for strengthening the capabilities of citizens in the area.

Among OECD countries, Japan is known for its disaster-prevention-experience learning facilities. For example, the Tokyo Rinkai Disaster Prevention Park provides simulations of earthquakes, fires and other emergency scenarios to educate visitors on disaster response. In the United States, the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco has an earthquake simulator where visitors can experience a realistic earthquake simulation, the aim being to educate the public on the need for readiness.

Training in digital literacy is also essential for disaster risk reduction as crucial information such as early warnings and the location of shelters and evacuation routes is now mainly disseminated via online platforms. Several countries in Emerging Asia, including Singapore and Malaysia, have implemented initiatives for improving the digital literacy of the public and students, although such programmes do not necessarily focus on disaster risk. Thailand, however, has initiated a programme to train individuals in rural and remote areas to use digital tools for receiving early warnings and disaster updates. Across the region, there is room for improvement in training in the use of online platforms designed for disaster events.

Improving health responses to disasters in Emerging Asia

The health impacts of disasters are often enormous. The injuries suffered can be acute and may lead to lasting disability. Disasters can also spawn mental health issues related to trauma and stress. They can significantly stress healthcare resources, which may also face distributional issues. All Emerging Asian countries have plans for directing health responses to disasters. Central government agencies responsible for disaster management typically co-ordinate with health ministries to address the negative health impacts (Table 2.3). Responses to large-scale disasters often involve support from a country’s armed forces and external professionals, while responses to smaller-scale disasters may be managed at lower levels of government.

Country	Health responses	Mental health responses
ASEAN-5
Indonesia	Health service provision is addressed in Rencana Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana 2020-2024	Funds from national and sub-national budgets (ABPN and APBD) contribute to MHPSS in disaster recovery
Malaysia	Crisis Preparedness and Response Centre (CPRC) and sub-national CPRC within health departments responsible	National Guidelines for Mental Health and Psychosocial Response to Disaster
Philippines	Health Emergency Management Bureau (HEMB) clusters provide health services in disasters. National Emergency Medical Teams (EMT) assist LGUs as needed	HEMB has a MHPSS cluster
Thailand	Local governments must budget for health services in disasters, local governments respond, but more severe disasters receive higher level responses	Health-related and social well-being rehabilitation includes MHPSS, MOPH responsible
Viet Nam	Ministry of Health has a Commanding Committee for Natural Disaster Prevention and Control, Search and Rescue (CCNDPC/SAR); MOH and provincial departments participate in disaster risk management system; Health Sector Action Plan	National Steering Committee for National Disaster Prevention and Control (NSCNDPC) collaborates with Disaster Risk Reduction Partnership members (NGOs, etc.)
Brunei Darussalam and Singapore
Brunei Darussalam	The Public Health Emergency Operation Plan co-ordinates efforts of the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) and Ministry of Health (MOH) and gives the MOH authority over health responses disasters.	Brunei Darussalam Mental Health Action Plan 2022-2025 calls developing national disaster mental health management guidelines or incorporating mental health in National Emergency Preparedness Plan a priority action
Singapore	Singapore EMT on-call in hospitals always	Disaster Mental Health Programme for Communities in Asia organises fora and training sessions open to all of Asia
CLM countries
Cambodia	National Strategic Plan on Disaster Risk Management for Health 2020-2024	MHPSS response is a priority strategy under the National Strategic Plan on Disaster Risk Management for Health 2020-2024 but is absent from the Mental Health Strategic Plan 2023-2032
China and India
China	National Emergency Management System Plan during the 14th Five-Year Plan Period	MHPSS support in schools, training for rural health professionals, online lectures for public
India	Ministry of Health and Family Welfare collaborates with Armed Forces	Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Services in Disasters (December 2023)

Source: Authors’ compilation from national sources and intergovernmental organisations, and (Li et al., 2022[116]), “Mental health and psychosocial interventions to limit the adverse psychological effects of disasters and emergencies in China: A scoping review”, The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific.

The localised nature of health systems and regional disparities within countries can result in uneven provision of healthcare services in the wake of a disaster. Countries with relatively stronger disaster response and healthcare systems are more likely to have plans to offer interregional assistance at the subnational level (e.g. to an affected state or province from one that is unaffected). This section addresses policy considerations for mobilising healthcare to disaster-stricken areas, preserving healthcare capacity in the aftermath of a disaster and scaling up healthcare capacity in the short and long term.

Health responses to disasters require intricate co-ordination

Severe disasters often present significant health response challenges that local or even national authorities may have difficulty handling on their own. As part of the broader effort to develop interconnectedness within ASEAN, the association has founded the ASEAN Co-ordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management (AHA Centre) under the auspices of the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER). The AHA Centre provides support for national disaster management organisations of the respective member states, and facilitates co-ordination between member states and international organisations, NGOs and private sector actors in disaster response management.

Health system co-ordination in response to disasters involves various levels of government. While disaster management authorities are often national in scope, aspects of healthcare systems may be managed at subnational levels. Clear lines of communication must be established between national and subnational officials so that all parties can understand needs and capacity to assist. In countries where military personnel play a significant role in disaster response, a clear delineation of authority between civilian and military co-ordinators and responders may be useful. In either of these cases, avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts is a key objective to minimise wasted time and funds. Most countries in Emerging Asia have established disaster response hierarchies. In some cases, the scale of an event determines which officials are authorised to declare a disaster or which level of government is primarily responsible for managing it. For instance, Thailand classifies disasters from levels 1 to 4, based on areas affected, geographic size, level of severity and complexity, population affected, existing capacity for emergency management and availability of resources. As severity increases from 1 to 4, command and co-ordination responsibility is delegated to higher authorities (Table 2.4). Several other Emerging Asian countries use similar systems (e.g. Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Viet Nam).

Disaster level	Declaration authority	Disaster management authority
1 (small-scale disaster)	Provincial/Bangkok Metropolitan incident commander	District/local government incident commander or Bangkok Metropolitan assistant incident commander
2 (medium-scale disaster)	Provincial/Bangkok Metropolitan incident commander	Provincial/Bangkok Metropolitan incident commander
3 (large-scale disaster)	National incident commander	National incident commander
4 (catastrophic disaster)	Prime minister or assigned deputy	Prime minister or assigned deputy

Source: Authors’ adaptation from (NDPMC, 2015[117]), National Disaster Risk Management Plan.

Hierarchies must be defined clearly enough to ensure functional chains of communication and command, while allowing those closest to the disaster – usually local officials at the bottom of the hierarchy – enough autonomy to make assessments of needs and communicate those needs to officials at higher levels of government. In Emerging Asian countries, several government agencies are typically involved in disaster responses. Disaster responses therefore require efficient and robust plans of co-ordination between agencies and levels of government. Roles of involved bodies should be clearly defined with minimal overlap.

For example, Thailand incorporates 27 government agencies into its disaster response plans. The Ministry of Public Health is the agency primarily responsible for health aspects of disaster responses. It is responsible for issuing directives to several agencies under its supervision and co-ordinating among other agencies, universities and medical facilities. The 2015 National Disaster Risk Management Plan was designed and implemented in response to findings that disaster responses in Thailand were fragmented by local jurisdictions and that co‑ordination among government agencies was insufficient. In the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, Thai hospitals performed well given the stressful demands placed upon their facilities and staff, but procedures for assisting victims differed by province. A national agency charged with the oversight of health responses to disasters may help to reduce regional disparities in care available. Intraregional (hospital-to-hospital) co-ordination and interregional co-ordination are both essential.

The health of the general population must also be preserved during disasters

Disaster management authorities must not only contend with injuries or illnesses acquired during disasters, but they must also work to preserve the health of the population. A breakdown in sanitary conditions may arise from infrastructure damage that makes hygienic practices difficult or from unplanned exposure to substances dangerous to human health. It is thus a top priority to ensure that those affected by disasters have access to clean water for drinking and maintaining hygiene, along with hygiene equipment and supplies. Food security may also be threatened during and immediately after a disaster, while individuals whose homes are damaged or destroyed in disasters require temporary shelter. Food and water security, hygiene and health services must be preserved during and following disasters. Advisory messaging to stockpile potable water, non-perishable food and prescription medications should be disseminated in all phases of the disaster cycle.

In addition to these immediate environmental concerns, care must continue for pregnant women, people with chronic medical conditions and those already hospitalised prior to a disaster. Hospitals should be equipped with generators and have stocks of critical supplies to be used only in a disaster scenario. It should be a priority to ensure that patients requiring frequent regular treatment (e.g. those on dialysis or undergoing cancer treatments) have their treatment schedules preserved as much as possible or are triaged for limited care at the very least (Lempert and Kopp, 2019[118]), as alterations to these schedules may lead to negative health consequences. Individuals with medical conditions requiring chronic use of medication should be permitted and encouraged to stockpile some of their medications for use during and after a disaster. Health authorities should also instruct doctors to inform outpatients requiring regular treatments about how to seek those treatments during a disaster.

Resource flexibility facilitates disaster response

Resource flexibility is vital in disaster response. Depending on the location and type of a disaster, local health-related physical and human capital might be insufficient. While severe disasters or catastrophes often draw international aid, smaller or more localised disasters may not. ASEAN has some support programmes in place, but these programmes operate on a relatively small scale, so the quickest and most robust response most often needs to come from the affected country itself. Maintaining accurate data on medical personnel, hospital and resource capacity at all levels of administration may help policy makers decide how to best allocate resources.

For instance, in areas where medical demand is lower, medical personnel could be encouraged to make themselves available to go elsewhere in the country in response to a disaster. Because it is undesirable for such temporary personnel movements to cause shortages in the regions of origin, accurate data would help policy makers choose which regions can best afford to participate in such a programme. Licensure requirements vary by country: while many countries operate medical (or nursing) licensure on a national basis, some, such as Canada and the United States, require additional licensure at subnational levels. Requirements of this type inevitably constrain the flexibility of the workforce. Any requirements of this type should be suspended for out-of-region domestic professionals during a disaster. Formal agreements of mutual credential recognition may prove helpful.

There is also a need to redistribute medical equipment and supplies during a disaster. Health authorities might consider maintaining a stockpile of critical equipment and supplies in a usable state. The database should be reviewed regularly to remove expired medicines or equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. During a disaster, local incident authorities should be responsible for updating the database frequently so that it reflects the current status of the stockpile. Logistics plans including how the supplies are stored, distributed or transferred may be helpful as they would allow disaster responses to be accelerated.

Because disaster medicine often requires medical personnel to work in atypical conditions with additional constraints, specialised training is useful (Box 2.5). Courses in disaster medicine should be offered, and countries with a high incidence of disasters should consider making such teaching a mandatory component of medical and nursing training. In the longer term, as emergency response capacity improves, national teams capable of helping Emerging Asian peers could be envisaged.

Box 2.5. Effective disaster response requires special training for medical professionals

Disaster medicine can be significantly different than medicine practised under standard conditions. During a disaster or its immediate aftermath, medical personnel may be faced with adverse working conditions in a new environment, an inability to access the full range of equipment or medicines available in clinics or hospitals and limited or no electricity. Disaster medicine also requires special triage skills to allocate scarce medical resources in a way that leads to the best outcome in terms of lives saved. Due to these factors, disaster medicine requires special training beyond basic medical education.

Within Emerging Asia, Singapore already has a disaster medicine training programme. Although Singapore faces natural disasters infrequently, an emergency medical team (EMT) consisting of two doctors and four nurses is available for every shift at all public tertiary hospitals. The EMTs are provided with the necessary equipment and supplies and operate on a “scoop-and-run” principle, where minimal care is provided at the disaster site and patients are transferred to hospitals as quickly as possible. While training in disaster medical response was conducted mainly on an ad hoc basis in Singapore for some time, a formal course began in 2013 in response to demand from multiple stakeholder groups. Developing familiarity with available equipment and supplies, and conducting appropriate assessments and treatments under those constraints, are key components of the course. Similar training courses are available for disaster management teams in Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

All Emerging Asian countries would benefit from making such training a standard component of the basic medical and nursing curriculum. Given the relative scarcity of medical professionals in many Emerging Asian countries, policy makers should consider making disaster medicine training a mandatory part of the medical curriculum for those entering emergency medicine or emergency nursing, if not for all potential medical or nursing graduates. The development of other national EMTs would increase disaster resilience in the region.

Source: Authors based on Ciottone (2016[119]), “Introduction to Disaster Medicine” in Ciottone's Disaster Medicine; Pek et al. (2015[120]), “Emergency medicine as a specialty in Asia”, Acute Medicine & Surgery, and Pek et al. (2023[121]), “Developing the Disaster Medical Responder's Course in Singapore”, Western Pacific Surveillance and Response Journal: WPSAR.

Mental health care in the aftermath of a disaster is crucial

The mental health consequences of a disaster can include post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS), depression and anxiety, which differ in duration and prevalence across age groups and disaster types (Newnham et al., 2022[122]). Disaster preparedness thus requires the training of medical personnel to deal with mental health issues. However, mental health services are relatively scarce in Emerging Asia. In most Emerging Asian countries, the proportion of psychologists and psychiatrists in the population is far below the OECD average (Figure 2.7). As a result, it can be difficult to access care by these professionals even in typical times, with the effects of disasters only exacerbating the problem while also increasing demand.

Figure 2.7. Mental health professionals per 100 000 population, latest data available

Scarcity issues become even more concerning when the needs of different populations are considered. Children and adolescents may have different psychological or psychiatric needs than adults, and countries with large migrant worker populations would benefit from professionals who can speak their languages. Mental health services should therefore be scaled up, including via digital services, with specialised services for vulnerable groups such as women, children and migrant workers.

Despite these challenges, many countries in Emerging Asia offer disaster-specific mental health and psychosocial support services, and some have formal plans. Some plans also include caring for disaster workers who may face psychological challenges due to extreme stress and exposure to tragedy (Box 2.6).

Box 2.6. Disaster-response workers may need mental health care

While many Emerging Asian countries acknowledge the need to provide mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) to victims of disasters, relatively few have explicit plans to provide mental health support to disaster-response workers. Examples of such workers include rescue workers (fire, police, ambulance, military), medical personnel (doctors, nurses, hospital or clinic staff), or the professionals providing MHPSS to disaster victims themselves. In the course or aftermath of a disaster, these workers are faced with situations of extremely high stress, where complex decisions must be made quickly, and where error may prove fatal to those they are working to help.

Among Emerging Asian countries, Malaysia and India make mention of mental health care for disaster response workers in their disaster response plans. India mentions first responders as a vulnerable group, while Malaysia focuses on mental health considerations for disaster responders.

Stress management is essential both for those who volunteer and those who are obliged to assist (e.g. medical professionals near a disaster site). Team leaders can help manage stress by limiting shifts to 12 hours and ensuring a minimum of 12 hours off between shifts, and by providing workers access to MHPSS professionals. Reducing potential sources of frustration by maintaining clear command and role structures, and ensuring that essential supplies and equipment are available, is also helpful. A “buddy system” where pairs of colleagues observe each other can help identify colleagues who are overstressed but unaware of their state or afraid or ashamed to mention it. To manage stress, leaders can also rotate workers between high, medium- and low-stress tasks as skillsets permit (e.g. a nurse qualified to provide intensive care may benefit from periods of time in a standard nursing role). Workers will also need extended time away from their assignments. In addition, exit plans comprising a relatively fixed end date of a service period and the details of re-entry into service (e.g. length of leave, number of service periods expected) should be available to workers as a means of goal setting. MHPSS should also be made available to disaster workers once they have finished a period or the entirety of their service. Following a disaster, some workers might find readjusting to normal life challenging, especially if they have been separated from their families or regular activities for a long time.

Emerging Asian countries would be well-served to pursue similar approaches to assist the mental health of disaster response workers. A scarcity of human capital in some areas (e.g. specialist doctors) may lead to health professionals being overworked and becoming overstressed out of necessity. Likewise, MHPSS should be offered to all disaster response workers at the end of their period of service, and a mandatory debriefing (individual or group) could be considered. However, this may further strain limited MHPSS resources dealing with disaster victims, so alternative modes (e.g. online MHPSS or debriefing) should be considered as options.

Source: Authors based on (NDMA, 2023[126]), National Disaster Management Guidelines: Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Services in Disasters and (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2013[127]), Manual on Mental Health and Psychosocial Response to Disaster in Community.

The Asia-Pacific Disaster Mental Health Network provides guidance for mental health considerations specific to disaster situations. The network recommends implementing initiatives at the individual, family and community levels to strengthen mental health (Newnham et al., 2020[128]). Psychological first aid, child-specific mental health services and mental health education are key components of a successful response in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Policies to reduce the economic harm caused by disasters will also help alleviate stress. Newnham et al. (2020[128]) mention that low‑intensity programmes are necessary for those who suffer longer-term mental health effects. Clinical treatment should be provided for those with diagnosable conditions. Since disasters are likely to have larger effects on rural areas, digital mental health services should be scaled-up, supported by the digitalisation efforts that commenced in earnest during the COVID-19 pandemic (Ben-Zeev, 2020[129]; Newnham et al., 2020[128]). However, this should not come at the expense of development of traditional in-person services, as they are not necessarily interchangeable. As with other types of socio-economic interventions, high-risk groups require special attention. Women, children, the elderly and ethnic or religious minorities are potential examples of these.

Several researches on the relationship between disasters and suicide rates reveals the importance of post-disaster mental health follow-up and hints at a possible secondary benefit of disaster risk reduction measures. For instance, according to Matsubayashi et al. (2013[130]), Japanese data indicate that changes in suicide rates following a disaster depend on the severity of the disaster as measured by the number of people affected (killed, injured, or having a damaged or destroyed home) in a given prefecture, and may differ among demographic groups (age-sex pairs). The study found that suicide rates tend to increase, decrease and increase again following disasters (increasing on a net basis over five years). However, these findings are heavily influenced by the effects of the Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995. Without this severe disaster, the positive relationships disappear and the trend in the suicide rate becomes negative for all years, at the period of the disaster and five years later.

MHPSS programmes should be in place for up to five-six years following a severe disaster, and suicide trends should be monitored, and anti-suicide measures taken (e.g. messaging, helplines). The programmes may need to be tailored for demographic needs.

Facilitating the role of the private sector

Disasters present Emerging Asia’s private sector with a range of challenges

Exposure to disasters has confronted the private sector of Emerging Asian countries with a range of significant challenges. They include:

Regulatory and compliance issues. After a disaster, governments frequently implement new or modified regulations and compliance standards in order to improve preparation for any such future events. This is an important measure for any disaster-vulnerable country, especially when targeting critical infrastructure such as schools and hospitals that can also serve as shelters during a disaster. However, this obliges the private sector to adjust to the changing regulatory framework, which might include stricter building codes and amplified environmental criteria (UN, 2015[131]), resulting in additional upfront investment.
Insufficient risk assessment. Emerging Asia’s private sector is dominated by micro, small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, many of whom operate in an informal setup. Such businesses may not have access to state-of-the-art risk assessment tools that can analyse a wide range of factors, from disasters to supply-chain vulnerabilities. Without such tools and necessary expertise to use them, businesses may struggle to quantify and understand the multifaceted nature of risks they face, making it challenging to make informed decisions, especially in the face of repeated disaster events.
Limited insurance coverage. Emerging Asian countries have a long heritage of small cottage-based industries that often run on tight budgets, where the cost of an insurance premium might be perceived as additional financial burden. Many businesses in the region are either underinsured or lack insurance altogether, exposing them to significant financial losses in the event of a disaster, which can lead to job losses and economic downturns in the affected regions.
Weaknesses in supply-chain management. Damage by disasters to crops, transportation networks, manufacturing facilities, warehouses and other critical infrastructure disrupts supply chains, causing delays, shortages and increased expenses. To mitigate these risks, the private sector needs to establish more resilient supply-chain systems. This involves diversifying suppliers, implementing robust risk management practices, investing in technology for real-time visibility into the supply chain and developing contingency plans.
Deficient co-ordination. Public-private co-ordination enables the joint development of policies and advocacy efforts aimed at creating a conducive environment for disaster preparedness and response. This collaboration can lead to the formulation of regulations that incentivise businesses to adopt resilient practices and contribute to overall community resilience. However, the private sector often faces challenges in co-ordinating with government agencies and other stakeholders, leading to duplicated efforts and inefficient resource utilisation. Moreover, the private sector frequently lacks the necessary communication infrastructure and protocols to respond efficiently (ASEAN, 2016[132]). Consequently, post-disaster recovery can be delayed and become less efficient.
Economic downturn and joblessness. In a survey conducted in ten ASEAN countries from 2022 to 2023, a significant portion of respondents in all countries identified unemployment and economic recession as the primary challenges confronting the region. This situation can become even worse in the aftermath of a disaster. Smaller businesses without proper insurance coverage can face an existential crisis, while supply-chain disruptions encountered by larger businesses can influence business expansion and stability.

In India, for example, the private sector has encountered numerous disaster-related challenges over the last decade that have impacted its operations, performance and reputation. Disasters such as cyclones, floods, earthquakes, landslides, droughts and pandemics have impacted private-sector supply chains, infrastructure, assets, workforce, customers and markets, posing threats to the sector’s recovery.3 India’s private sector has acknowledged the need to bolster business continuity and resilience through strategies like risk assessment, contingency planning, insurance, backup systems and crisis management.

In China, the risk of disasters has been escalating due to swift economic development and urbanisation as well as climate change. Over the last ten years, China’s private sector has been significantly impacted by disasters including earthquakes, typhoons, floods, droughts, sandstorms, storm surges, landslides and debris flows, hailstorms, cold waves, heat waves, pests and rodent disease, forest and grassland fires, and red tides.

The region’s private sector can take various measures to adapt to disaster risk

The disaster-risk challenges facing the private sector are spurring efforts to adapt via enhanced disaster resilience and preparedness, and improved disaster management. In Cambodia, for example, the private sector is actively working to implement strategies to adapt to natural disasters, guided by principles encompassing preparedness, response and recovery. Across Emerging Asia, adaptation measures undertaken by private firms include:

Supply-chain diversification. Supply-chain diversification refers to expanding and varying supply chains to decrease reliance on singular sources and locations susceptible to disasters (UNCTAD, 2021[133]). It is a proactive disaster risk reduction strategy that enhances the resilience and adaptability of businesses before and after a disaster. Emerging Asian countries are encouraging such diversification. For example, the Singapore Economic Development Board has been promoting the benefits of making commodities in different countries (SEDB, 2023[134]). Both local and international manufacturers can benefit from Singapore's SG+ twinning model, which establishes dual production facilities in Singapore and in the neighbouring region of Johor in Malaysia and the islands of Batam, Bintan and Karimun in Indonesia. By spreading risk across multiple suppliers, regions and facilities, companies can better navigate disruptions, maintain business continuity and safeguard their long-term sustainability. While diversification may involve additional upfront costs, it can lead to long-term cost efficiency by preventing substantial financial losses associated with supply-chain disruptions. The investment in diversification often proves to be a prudent strategy given the potential costs of extended downtime, loss of customers and reputational damage resulting from single-source dependency.
Risk assessment and management. Companies are engaging in the evaluation of potential hazards and vulnerabilities, formulating contingency plans to manage risks effectively. Supply-chain diversification encourages companies to conduct comprehensive risk assessments and develop effective risk management strategies. This proactive approach enables businesses to identify vulnerabilities in their supply chains, implement risk mitigation measures and continuously monitor and adapt to changing risk landscapes.
Business continuity planning. Enterprises are formulating business continuity plans to guarantee the uninterrupted operation of critical business functions in the face of and following a disaster. In the event of disaster-induced disruptions, companies equipped with diversified supply chains are better positioned to maintain operations, meet customer demand and uphold contractual obligations. This, in turn, helps protect the company’s reputation and market share.
Collaboration. Collaboration between stakeholders, especially with the government, is a cornerstone of effective disaster management for businesses. By working together, businesses can access additional resources, share critical information and contribute to a more co-ordinated and resilient response. The collaborative approach enhances overall preparedness, response and recovery efforts, ensuring that businesses can navigate the challenges posed by disasters more effectively and contribute to the well-being of the broader community. Firms are actively co‑operating with various stakeholders, including governments, NGOs and local communities, to devise and implement strategies aimed at reducing the risks associated with disasters (Renaud et al., 2021[135]).
Insurance uptake. Businesses are procuring insurance policies as a safeguard against losses arising from natural disasters. Insurance serves as a critical risk management tool for businesses during disasters, providing financial protection, supporting recovery efforts and contributing to overall resilience. Businesses that prioritise comprehensive insurance coverage are better equipped to navigate the challenges posed by disasters and emerge stronger in the aftermath.

Apart from these actions, certain companies have embraced adaptation measures based on ecosystems. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and its collaborators are supporting the private sector in Cambodia to adjust to climate change through the enhancement of agricultural resilience, the extensive reforestation of natural areas and the creation of “home gardens” (UNEP, 2022[136]).

In Indonesia, especially in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, emphasis on partnerships in disaster management was reinforced by the Disaster Management Law of 2007. The initiation of the Disaster Resource Partnership by the World Economic Forum aimed to establish collaboration across three sectors: government, private sector (with a focus on construction and engineering companies) and humanitarian workers. The primary focus of this collaboration, which was officially launched in 2012, was on reducing the risk of disasters, recognising Indonesia’s susceptibility to various hazards. The initiative features robust support from the government and private sector along with collaboration with the United Nations (Rembeth, 2015[137]). This support and collaboration helps to streamline co-ordination, deliver expertise, share knowledge and advocate for the involvement of the engineering and construction sector in humanitarian endeavours.

In 2008, Malaysia organised the 3rd Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, which endorsed corporate social responsibility, business continuity plans and the establishment of disaster risk insurance markets that offer financial incentives for reducing disaster risks.4 Both the private sector and NGOs have achieved success through their collaborative activities in areas such as raising awareness and interest, sharing knowledge and expertise, establishing sustainable long-term collaborations and developing disaster preparedness programmes. By supporting and collaborating with NGOs, private companies can contribute to activities they deem crucial even if those activities are not their primary focus or expertise (Mathan and Izumi, 2015[138]).

In the Philippines, numerous private-sector entities perceive the escalating effects of climate change as a substantial threat to their operations. Both businesses and households contend with frequent typhoons and are exposed to repercussions of climate change such as rising sea levels. Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), which constitute 99% of all registered businesses in the Philippines, encounter notable difficulties in comprehending how climate change impacts may affect their profitability and long-term sustainability. To address these concerns and enhance climate change resilience, the national government, local government units and development organisers collaborate with private sector entities and other non-state actors. This collaborative effort aims to alleviate constraints faced by businesses, particularly MSMEs, making them more resilient to external shocks. Such endeavours carry significant implications for economic growth in the Philippines (Casado-Ascensio, 2021[139]).

In India, the private sector typically plays a supportive role following a disaster, actively engaging in humanitarian efforts during the response and relief phases.5 While these engagements have a significant impact on the community, they are dependent on aid and primarily focus on post-disaster relief and rehabilitation (Bhatt, 2002[140]; Twigg, 2001[141]). Most corporations that participated in disaster response or recovery in the aftermath of 2001 Gujarat Earthquake had a significant community tie or business interest in the disaster area (Patel and Alagh, 2013[142]). International, national or state-level corporations that participate in the long-term recovery process are those with significant corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds. International corporations typically collaborate with NGOs or foundations, while national and state-level companies contribute to a shared fund. Local organisations have fewer funds to contribute and serve mostly as beneficiaries, primarily acting as first responders. Disasters are gradually becoming catalysts for increasing private-sector involvement and contributing to societal well-being (Chatterjee and Shaw, 2015[143]).

Policies on measures to improve private-sector capacity for disaster resilience

Governments can enact policy measures aimed at enhancing the capacity of the private sector to manage and recover from disasters. Policy measures include:

Evaluating the susceptibility to disasters of all sectors, including the private sector. The Sendai Framework highlights the need to understand disaster risk as a crucial action point. In particular, it is important to establish risk information and modelling systems to evaluate the economic and fiscal repercussions of natural disasters, integrated into overall fiscal risk management.
Boosting disaster risk governance. This entails improving the legal, institutional and policy frameworks for disaster risk reduction, including those relevant to the private sector. Such improvements will boost disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels, including the private sector (Wen et al., 2023[144]).
Mobilising public-private partnerships when investing in disaster resilience. The challenges associated with financing climate-change adaptation measures, particularly in the private sector, largely stem from the perceived lack of a “business case” for adaptation. It is therefore important to understand the need for public-private partnerships, together with a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis, when investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience.
Encouraging the growth of private catastrophe risk insurance markets. This can be accomplished through collaborative efforts between the public and private sectors, along with the development of supportive regulatory frameworks and risk market infrastructure. Governments can endorse initiatives such as the UN-supported Private Sector Alliance for Disaster Resilient Societies (ARISE) to leverage private-sector strength in reducing the nation’s vulnerability to disasters (Lu, 2022[145]).

Conclusion

A holistic approach to disaster-resilient development can help countries to cope with the rising risk of natural disaster. As we have seen, this is particularly important in Emerging Asia, the world’s most disaster-prone region. The accepted governance norms of the past can no longer meet the requirements posed by the increasing complexity of systemic risks. Addressing the impact of disasters requires strategic development of new holistic policy measures towards resilience.

Beyond their potentially devastating short-term effects, disasters impede long-term development and sustainability by interrupting the production and distribution of goods and services and by overwhelming government budgets. Vulnerable groups and communities are particularly endangered, as the economic and social structures they rely on are often compromised.

This chapter has examined how countries in Emerging Asia can evolve and adopt institutions and governance systems to cope with the increasing risk posed by natural hazards. It has shown that a proactive approach, i.e. preparing for disasters before they strike, is far more efficient and effective than the region’s currently predominant reactive approach of managing disasters in their aftermath.

Measures that can be taken to transform governance and improve institutional capacity to manage rising disaster risks include steps such as bolstering risk assessment, developing a capacity-building programme for all levels of government and updating disaster management laws and regulations. A key challenge is that the limited availability of disaster risk data hinders effective monitoring and evaluation of policy implementation.

Lack of funding for disaster preparedness and recovery is another major constraint faced by countries in the region. At present, funding for disaster resilience is often deprioritised due to competition from other urgent budget items. Policy makers should seek to redress this situation by increasing the availability of funds for disaster risk reduction measures, with particular attention to local government budgets and aligning policies at different government levels to prevent overlaps.

Coherent strategies for building financial resilience to disasters involve an integrated approach to managing disaster risk across all levels of government. A key step for the region is to boost the use of disaster insurance by households and firms. To better manage the financial impact of disasters, it is also important for governments to consider new options, such as catastrophe bonds, insurance pools and disaster risk financing mechanisms.

Building disaster-resistant infrastructure and retrofitting existing infrastructure for disaster resilience is a critical step towards adapting to climate change. However, major capital investment and effective financing methods are needed for the construction of disaster-proofed electricity grids, public transport systems, irrigation systems, dams, retaining walls, seawalls, buildings, etc. Nature-based infrastructure solutions are important in ensuring a sustainable future.

Likewise, at a time when millions of people in Emerging Asia are being displaced by disasters, policies are needed to address disaster-linked migration and its economic, social and environmental repercussions. Land planning also needs to be improved, for example by changing the zoning of disaster-vulnerable areas.

Technological innovations such as drones, search-and-rescue robots, artificial intelligence, blockchain technology and spatial analysis tools offer major potential for disaster risk management. Governments can build capacity for the use of new technologies by supporting investment in research and development, facilitating internet and mobile phone access, and encouraging co‑operation between industry and academia.

Education in disaster risk reduction can be challenging in the region due to geographic and cultural diversity. However, as disaster risk rises, building public preparedness is essential. Steps include incorporating disaster risk reduction education (both theory and practice) into school curricula; organising training for school staff and community members; and monitoring and assessing education programmes to ensure their efficacy.

Meeting the health response challenges of severe disasters requires efficient and robust plans of co-ordination between agencies and levels of government. Roles of involved bodies should be clearly defined with minimal overlap. Maintaining accurate data on medical personnel and hospital and resource capacity at all levels of administration may help policy makers decide how best to allocate resources. Effective response requires special training of medical professionals in health and mental health care for disaster victims.

Finally, exposure to disasters has confronted the private sector in Emerging Asia with significant challenges. In view of increasing risks, private-sector businesses can improve their disaster preparedness through steps such as supply-chain diversification, risk assessment and investment in resilient infrastructure, while governments can enact policy measures to enhance private-sector disaster resilience.

References

[32] Aakre, S. et al. (2010), “Financial adaptation to disaster risk in the European Union”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 15/7, pp. 721-736, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9232-3.

[75] ADB (2022), Disaster Displacement in Asia and the Pacific: A Business Case For Investment in Prevention and Solutions, Asian Development Bank, https://www.adb.org/publications/disaster-displacement-asia-pacific.

[56] ADB (2022), Disaster-Resilient Infrastructure: Unlocking Opportunities for Asia and the Pacific, Asian Development Bank, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/791151/disaster-resilient-infrastructure-opportunities-asia-pacific.pdf.

[99] Agurbash, E. (2023), “Autonomous robots for disaster management”, AI for Good blog, ITU, https://aiforgood.itu.int/autonomous-robots-for-disaster-management/.

[3] Aladangady, A. et al. (2017), “The Effect of Hurricane Matthew on Consumer Spending”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3056155.

[39] Altun, T. and N. Güldiken (2019), “Natural disaster insurance: public-private sector partnership”, Journal of Human Sciences, Vol. 16/4, pp. 1084-1095, Uluslararasi Insan Bilimleri Dergisi, https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v16i3.5843.

[113] Amri, A. et al. (2017), “Disaster risk reduction education in Indonesia: challenges and recommendations for scaling up”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 17/4, pp. 595-612, Copernicus GmbH, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-595-2017.

[64] Añel, J. (ed.) (2018), “Comparing the cost effectiveness of nature-based and coastal adaptation: A case study from the Gulf Coast of the United States”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 13/4, p. e0192132, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192132.

[111] Annan, K. (2022), Role of Education in Mitigating Disasters in India—thus Saving Lives, https://www.claws.in/static/IB-362_Role-of-Education-in-Mitigating-Disasters-in-India%E2%80%94thus-Saving-Lives.pdf.

[54] Artemis (n.d.), Catastrophe Bond & Insurance-linked Securities Deal Directory (database), http://www.artemis.bm/deal-directory.

[76] ASEAN (2022), Social issues and progress in ASEAN, ASEAN Secretariat, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/FA-02-DIGITAL.pdf.

[132] ASEAN (2016), ASEAN Vision 2025 on Disaster Management, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fa-220416_DM2025_email.pdf.

[100] Ashby, S. (2023), PNNL Researchers Using AI to Aid Disaster Response and Recovery, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 25 September 2023, https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/pnnl-researchers-using-ai-aid-disaster-response-and-recovery.

[38] Auzzir, Z., R. Haigh and D. Amaratunga (2014), “Public-private Partnerships (PPP) in Disaster Management in Developing Countries: A Conceptual Framework”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 18, pp. 807-814, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(14)01006-5.

[5] Baez, J., A. de la Fuente and I. Santos (2010), “Do Natural Disasters Affect Human Capital? An Assessment Based on Existing Empirical Evidence”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1672172.

[129] Ben-Zeev, D. (2020), “The Digital Mental Health Genie Is Out of the Bottle”, Psychiatric Services, Vol. 71/12, pp. 1212-1213, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.202000306.

[140] Bhatt, R. (2002), Corporate social responsibility and natural disaster reduction: Local overview of Gujarat, University College London, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d3440f0b652dd001810/R7893CSRGujarat.pdf.

[44] Blazhevski, D. (2019), “The role of public private partnership in developing catastrophe insurance market”, Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 17, pp. 55-66, https://www.proquest.com/openview/a0d6a70328437a2ebd5fcacee83f7373/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=5191100.

[107] Bleiberg, J. and D. West (2015), 3 ways to provide Internet access to the developing world, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/3-ways-to-provide-internet-access-to-the-developing-world/.

[21] Brucal, A. et al. (2020), Disaster impacts and financing: local insights from the Philippines, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.

[139] Casado-Ascensio, J. (2021), “Lessons on engaging with the private sector to strengthen climate resilience in Guatemala, the Philippines and Senegal”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/lessons-on-engaging-with-the-private-sector-to-strengthen-climate-resilience-in-guatemala-the-philippines-and-senegal_09b46b3f-en.

[87] Chan, J. (2013), The role of social media in crisis preparedness, response and recovery, Rahs Think Centre, https://huids.haifa.ac.il/nidp/saml2/sso?id=hucrlog&sid=1&option=credential&sid=1.

[143] Chatterjee, R. and R. Shaw (2015), “Role of Regional Organizations for Enhancing Private Sector Involvement in Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Asia”, in Disaster Management and Private Sectors, Disaster Risk Reduction, Springer Japan, Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55414-1_4.

[119] Ciottone, G. (2016), “Introduction to Disaster Medicine”, in Ciottone’s Disaster Medicine, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-28665-7.00001-7.

[1] CRED (n.d.), EM-DAT, The International Disaster Database, https://www.emdat.be/ (accessed on 18 March 2024).

[15] Cuevas, S. (2017), “Institutional dimensions of climate change adaptation: insights from the Philippines”, Climate Policy, Vol. 18/4, pp. 499-511, Informa UK Limited, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1314245.

[60] Ding, H. et al. (2021), “Accelerating Climate-resilient Infrastructure Investment in China”, https://doi.org/10.46830/wrirpt.21.00031.

[43] Dlugolecki, A. and E. Hoekstra (2006), “The role of the private market in catastrophe insurance”, Climate Policy, Vol. 6/6, pp. 648-657, Informa UK Limited, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2006.9685630.

[20] Domingo, S. and A. Manejar (2021), “Policy, Institutional, and Expenditure Review of Bottom-up Approach Disaster Risk Reduction and Management”, Discussion Paper Series, No. 2021-03.

[48] EU-ABC (2016), Partnering ASEAN to Close the Insurance Protection Gap, https://www.eu-asean.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Partnering-ASEAN-to-close-the-Insurance-Protection-Gap-2016.pdf.

[82] Eugenio, E. et al. (2014), Livelihood adaptation to impacts of extreme events in the Philippines: A ecade after the typhoon-induced disasters in Infanta, Quezon, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271850240.

[88] FAO (2017), FAO, MOALI and MAEU collaborate to enhance DRR/DRM through modern geospatial technologies, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, https://www.fao.org/myanmar/news/detail-events/en/c/888053/.

[45] Feyen, E., R. Lester and R. de Rezende Rocha (2011), What drives the development of the insurance sector? An empirical analysis based on a panel of development and developing countries, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1774419.

[92] Frías-Martínez, E. (2016), “How big mobile data can help manage natural disasters”, Blogthinkbig.com, 13 May 2016, https://en.blogthinkbig.com/2016/05/13/how-big-mobile-data-can-help-manage-natural-disasters/.

[23] Gaillard, J. and J. Mercer (2012), “From knowledge to action”, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 37/1, pp. 93-114, SAGE Publications, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512446717.

[35] Gearing, A. (2018), “Post-disaster recovery is a marathon, not a sprint: The need for a state-sponsored recovery scheme”, Pacific Journalism Review: Te Koakoa, Vol. 24/1, pp. 52-68, Auckland University of Technology (AUT) Library, https://doi.org/10.24135/pjr.v24i1.402.

[14] GFDRR/World Bank/UN (2011), Thai Flood 2011: Rapid Assessment for Resilient Recovery and Reconstruction Planning, The World Bank, Bangkok, https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/Thai_Flood_2011_2.pdf.

[53] GIZ (2022), ASEAN Guideline on Agricultural Insurance Implementation: Lessons and Experience from the ASEAN, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/9.-ASEAN-Guideline-Agricultural-Insurance-Implementation-Adopted.pdf.

[93] Harmes, D. (2018), International Charities Embrace Blockchain for Disaster Relief, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/international-charities-embrace-blockchain-disaster-harmes-ph-d-/.

[49] Hellmuth, M. et al. (2009), Index insurance and climate risk: Prospects for development and disaster management, International Research Institute for Climate and Society, https://iri.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Climate-and-Society-Issue-Number-2.pdf.

[57] Hosseinzadeh, N. et al. (2022), “Concrete seawalls: A review of load considerations, ecological performance, durability, and recent innovations”, Ecological Engineering, Vol. 178, May 2022, 106573, Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106573.

[47] Hussels, S. et al. (2007), “South and East Asian Insurance Market Growth and Development”, in Handbook of International Insurance, Huebner International Series on Risk, Insurance and Economic Security, Springer US, Boston, MA, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34163-7_17.

[4] Husted, L., I. Opper and R. Park (2022), The Impact of Natural Disasters on Human Capital, https://doi.org/10.26300/bkah-we19.

[8] Ingham, V. et al. (2012), “An interdisciplinary approach to disaster management, incorporating economics and social psychology”, International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Vol. 6/5, pp. 93-106, https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/9368506/PID29207postpub.pdf.

[72] IOM (2023), Environmental Migration Portal, https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/environmental-migration.

[80] Islam, M. and N. Khan (2018), “Threats, vulnerability, resilience and displacement among the climate change and natural disaster-affected people in South-East Asia: an overview”, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, Vol. 23/2, pp. 297-323, Informa UK Limited, https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2018.1442153.

[90] ITU (2019), Disruptive technologies and their use in disaster risk reduction and management, https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Emergency-Telecommunications/Documents/2019/GET_2019/Disruptive-Technologies.pdf.

[30] JICA (2021), Data Collection Survey to Improve the Public Insurance System, including the Introduction of Disaster Risk-based Insurance Premium: Final Report, https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12367157.pdf.

[78] Johnson, K. et al. (2021), “Displaced by climate and disaster‐induced relocations: experiences of cascading displacement in Fiji and the Philippines”, Disasters, Vol. 46/2, pp. 499-525, Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12475.

[114] Kawasaki, H. et al. (2022), “Introductory Disaster Training for Aspiring Teachers: A Pilot Study”, Sustainability, Vol. 14/6: 3492, MDPI AG, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063492.

[94] Kwak, Y. (2017), “Nationwide Flood Monitoring for Disaster Risk Reduction Using Multiple Satellite Data”, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, Vol. 6/7, pp. 203, MDPI AG, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6070203.

[46] Kwon, W. (2011), “History of Insurance, Market Development and Regulation in Seven Least Developed Countries in Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Nepal”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 5/1, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, https://doi.org/10.2202/2153-3792.1095.

[146] Lavell, C. and J. Ginnetti (2014), The risk of disaster-induced displacement in the Pacific Island states, https://www.internal-displacement.org/publications/technical-paper-the-risk-of-disaster-induced-displacement-in-the-pacific-island-states/.

[51] Le Quesne, F. et al. (2017), “The Role of Insurance in Integrated Disaster & Climate Risk Management: Evidence and Lessons Learned Report”.

[12] Lebel, L. and P. Lebel (2017), “Policy narratives help maintain institutional traps in the governance of floods in Thailand”, International Journal of Water Resources Development, Vol. 34/4, pp. 616-631, Informa UK Limited, https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1336989.

[118] Lempert, K. and J. Kopp (2019), “Renal Failure Patients in Disasters”, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Vol. 13/4, pp. 782-790, Cambridge University Press (CUP), https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2018.142.

[116] Li, G. et al. (2022), “Mental health and psychosocial interventions to limit the adverse psychological effects of disasters and emergencies in China: A scoping review”, The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific, Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100580.

[70] Lou, Y. and L. Zhang (2011), “Defending Transportation Networks against Random and Targeted Attacks”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2234/1, pp. 31-40, SAGE Publications, https://doi.org/10.3141/2234-04.

[31] Lucas, C. and K. Booth (2020), “Privatizing climate adaptation: How insurance weakens solidaristic and collective disaster recovery”, WIREs Climate Change, Vol. 11/6, Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.676.

[145] Lu, X. (2022), Accelerating Private Sector Engagement in Adaptation in Asia and the Pacific, Asian Development Bank, https://doi.org/10.22617/wps220513-2.

[40] Ma, S. and J. Jiang (2017), “Discrete dynamical Pareto optimization model in the risk portfolio for natural disaster insurance in China”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 90/1, pp. 445-460, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3053-6.

[138] Mathan, A. and T. Izumi (2015), Malaysian experiences: The private sector and NGO collaboration in risk reduction, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-4-431-55414-1.

[130] Matsubayashi, T., Y. Sawada and M. Ueda (2013), “Natural disasters and suicide: Evidence from Japan”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 82, pp. 126-133, Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.021.

[33] McAneney, J. et al. (2016), “Government-sponsored natural disaster insurance pools: A view from down-under”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 15, pp. 1-9, Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.11.004.

[71] Mead, L. (2022), Disaster risk reduction in an unstable world, https://www.iisd.org/articles/disaster-risk-reduction.

[68] Mechler, R. (2016), “Reviewing estimates of the economic efficiency of disaster risk management: opportunities and limitations of using risk-based cost–benefit analysis”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 81/3, pp. 2121-2147, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2170-y.

[91] Meier, P. and D. Soesilo (2015), Using drones for disaster damage assessments in Vanuatu, https://reliefweb.int/report/vanuatu/drones-humanitarian-action-case-study-no10-using-drones-disaster-damage-assessments.

[41] MicroSave Consulting et al. (2022), First insights: Landscape of Climate and Disaster Risk Insurance (CDRI) in Asia and the Pacific, https://www.insuresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/First-insights_CDRI-Landscape-Asia-Pacific-1.pdf.

[67] Minato, N. and R. Morimoto (2012), “Collaborative management of regional air transport during natural disasters: Case of the 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami”, Research in Transportation Business & Management, Vol. 4, pp. 13-21, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.06.008.

[127] Ministry of Health Malaysia (2013), Manual on Mental Health and Psychosocial Response to Disaster in Community, https://www.moh.gov.my/moh/resources/Penerbitan/Garis%20Panduan/Pengurusan%20KEsihatan%20&%20kawalan%20pykit/Modul%20unit%20mental%202017/Manual_On_Mental_Health_Psychosocial_Respone_To_Disaster.pdf.

[125] Ministry of Health Singapore (2021), Sufficiency of Number of Practising Psychiatrists and Psychologists in Singapore, https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/sufficiency-of-number-of-practising-psychiatrists-and-psychologists-in-singapore.

[104] Ministry of the Interior and Safety of the Republic of Korea (2022), Disaster-safety industry technology commercialization support project, https://www.iris.go.kr/contents/retrieveBsnsAncmView.do?ancmId=000452&bsnsYyDetail=2022&sorgnBsnsCd=S000727&bsnsAncmSn=1&chngRcveDeFro=2022/03/03&chngRcveDeTo=2022/03/18.

[2] Molnar-Tanaka, K., P. Ibrahim and O. Hean (2023), “How Did Disasters Change Consumption Behaviour in Thailand and the Philippines?”, Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 175-197, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27241203.

[11] Molnar-Tanaka, K. (forthcoming), Towards Disaster-Resilient Development for ASEAN post-2025: Holistic and interdisciplinary approaches, ERIA: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia, Jakarta.

[63] Molnar-Tanaka, K. and S. Surminski (2024), “Nature-based solutions for flood management in Asia and the Pacific”, OECD Development Centre Working Papers, No. 351, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f4c7bcbe-en.

[77] Munawar, H. et al. (2022), “Disruptive technologies as a solution for disaster risk management: A review”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 806, Part 3, 1 February 2022, 151351, Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151351.

[50] Mysiak, J. and C. Pérez-Blanco (2016), “Partnerships for disaster risk insurance in the EU”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 16/11, pp. 2403-2419, Copernicus GmbH, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2403-2016.

[9] National Research Council, U.S. Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences: Future Challenges and Opportunities, and U.S. Division on Earth and Life Studies National Research Council (2006), Facing hazards and disasters: Understanding human dimensions, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., https://lccn.loc.gov/2006931516.

[126] NDMA (2023), National Disaster Management Guidelines: Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Services in Disasters, https://ndma.gov.in/sites/default/files/PDF/Guidelines/Guidelines_Mental_Health_Psychosocial_Support_Dec23.pdf.

[117] NDPMC (2015), National Disaster Risk Management Plan, https://leap.unep.org/en/countries/th/national-legislation/national-disaster-risk-management-plan-2015.

[128] Newnham, E. et al. (2020), “The Asia Pacific Disaster Mental Health Network: Setting a Mental Health Agenda for the Region”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17/17, pp. 6144, MDPI AG, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176144.

[122] Newnham, E. et al. (2022), “Long term mental health trajectories after disasters and pandemics: A multilingual systematic review of prevalence, risk and protective factors”, Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 97, November 2022, 102203, Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102203.

[55] OECD (2024), Fostering Catastrophe Bond Markets in Asia and the Pacific, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ab1e49ef-en.

[101] OECD (2023), Healthcare resources: Physicians by categories, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?ThemeTreeId=9#.

[102] OECD (2019), OECD AI Principles overview, https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles.

[52] OECD (2015), Disaster Risk Financing: A Global Survey of Practices and Challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264234246-en.

[61] OECD/ADBI/Mekong Institute (2020), Innovation for Water Infrastructure Development in the Mekong Region, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/167498ea-en.

[22] OECD/The World Bank (2019), Fiscal Resilience to Natural Disasters: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27a4198a-en.

[95] Office of Governor Gavin Newsom (2023), Governor Newsom Highlights New AI, Satellites, Tech and Aircraft Keeping Californians Safer This Wildfire Season, State of California, 29 June 2023, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/29/governor-newsom-highlights-new-ai-satellites-tech-and-aircraft-keeping-californians-safer-this-wildfire-season/.

[96] Office of Governor Gavin Newsom (2023), ICYMI: “As California Fires Worsen, Can AI Come to the Rescue?, State of California, 24 August 2023, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/08/24/icymi-as-california-fires-worsen-can-ai-come-to-the-rescue/.

[66] Padgett, J. and C. Tapia (2013), “Sustainability of Natural Hazard Risk Mitigation: Life Cycle Analysis of Environmental Indicators for Bridge Infrastructure”, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 19/4, pp. 395-408, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000138.

[36] Paleari, S. (2019), “Disaster risk insurance: A comparison of national schemes in the EU-28”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 35, April 2019, 101059, Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.12.021.

[110] Pandey, B. (2007), “Disaster Education in Fiji, Indonesia, and Uzbekistan”, Building Research Institute and National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, pp. 67-90.

[142] Patel, B. and R. Alagh (2013), Response of the Corporate Sector to the Gujarat Earthquake of 2001.

[10] Peek, L. and S. Guikema (2021), “Interdisciplinary Theory, Methods, and Approaches for Hazards and Disaster Research: An Introduction to the Special Issue”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 41/7, pp. 1047-1058, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13777.

[120] Pek, J. et al. (2015), “Emergency medicine as a specialty in Asia”, Acute Medicine & Surgery, Vol. 3/2, pp. 65-73, Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/ams2.154.

[121] Pek, J. et al. (2023), “Developing the Disaster Medical Responder’s Course in Singapore”, Western Pacific surveillance and response journal: WPSAR, Vol. 14/6 Spec edition, pp. 1-6, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38298249/.

[34] Penning-Rowsell, E. and J. Pardoe (2015), “The distributional consequences of future flood risk management in England and Wales”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 33/5, pp. 1301-1321, SAGE Publications, https://doi.org/10.1068/c13241.

[115] Petal, M. (2008), Disaster Prevention for Schools Guidance for Education Sector Decision-Makers, UNISDR, Geneva, https://www.preventionweb.net/files/7344_DPforSchoolssm.pdf.

[98] Pizzuto, C. (2023), Disaster robots: Revolutionizing emergency response with autonomous robots, AI for Good blog, 18 April 2023, https://aiforgood.itu.int/disaster-robots-revolutionizing-emergency-response-with-autonomous-robots/.

[13] Pritchett, L., M. Woolcock and M. Andrews (2010), “Capability Traps? The Mechanisms of Persistent Implementation Failure”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1824519.

[137] Rembeth, V. (2015), Indonesian experiences of private secor involvement: Focus on partnership, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-4-431-55414-1.

[135] Renaud, F. et al. (2021), Adaptation and resilience in ASEAN: Managing disaster risks from natural hazards, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-singapore-cop26-universities-network-policy-reports/adaptation-and-resilience-in-asean-managing-disaster-risks-from-natural-hazards.

[37] Reyes, C. et al. (2017), “Agricultural insurance program: Lessons from different country experiences”, PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2017-02, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Quezon City, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/173579/1/pidsdps1702.pdf.

[83] Saunders, W. and M. Kilvington (2016), “Innovative land use planning for natural hazard risk reduction: A consequence-driven approach from New Zealand”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 18, pp. 244-255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.07.002.

[134] SEDB (2023), Singapore pitches benefits of diversified supply chain to manufacturers, https://www.edb.gov.sg/en/business-insights/insights/singapore-pitches-benefits-of-diversified-supply-chain-to-manufacturers.html.

[112] Selby, D. and F. Kagawa (2012), Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies from Thirty Countries, UNESCO and UNICEF, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000217036.

[84] Shaw, R. and M. Banba (2017), Land Use Management in Disaster Risk Reduction: An Overview, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-4-431-56442-3_1.

[29] Shynkarenko, I. et al. (2022), Survey on Sustainable Agricultural Insurance Scheme in Indonesia, https://perpustakaan.bappenas.go.id/e-library/file_upload/koleksi/migrasi-data-publikasi/file/Unit_Kerja/Dit%20Pangan%20dan%20Pertanian/AgroInsurance%20Final%20Report%20(English).pdf.

[26] Srikandini, A., D. Hilhorst and R. Voorst (2018), “Disaster Risk Governance in Indonesia and Myanmar: The Practice of Co-Governance”, Politics and Governance, Vol. 6/3, pp. 180-189, Cogitatio, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i3.1598.

[42] Swiss Re (2023), Sigma Explorer (database), https://www.sigma-explorer.com/index.html.

[28] Swiss Re (2022), World insurance: Inflation risks front and centre, https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/sigma-2022-04.html.

[141] Twigg, J. (2001), Corporate social responsibility and disaster reduction: A global overview, University College London, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d66ed915d3cfd0019e8/R7893CSROverview.pdf.

[97] UC San Diego (2023), Technology, https://alertcalifornia.org/technology/ (accessed on 19 March 2024).

[108] UN (2020), Report for the Secretary-General: Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, https://www.un.org/en/content/digital-cooperation-roadmap/assets/pdf/Roadmap_for_Digital_Cooperation_EN.pdf.

[65] UN (2016), The relevance of soft infrastructure in disaster management and risk reduction, https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/relevance-soft-infrastructure-disaster-management-and-risk-reduction.

[131] UN (2015), Mapping of the Typhoon Haiyan affected areas in the Philippines using geospatial data and very high resolution satellite images, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/rcc/docs/rccap20/15_paper-Mapping%20of%20the%20Typhoon%20Haiyan%20Affected%20Areas%20in%20the%20%20Philippines.pdf.

[17] UN (2015), Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030.

[103] UN and UNDRR (2013), Risk-informed Governance and Innovative Technology for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience, https://unpan.un.org/sites/default/files/Toolkits/Toolkit%206%20on%20DRR/Course%20Introduction%20and%20Overview_DRR_compressed.pdf.

[16] UN.ESCAP (2023), Seizing the moment: targeting transformative disaster risk resilience, https://repository.unescap.org/handle/20.500.12870/6258.

[133] UNCTAD (2021), Trade and Environment Review 2021: Trade-Climate Readiness for Developing Countries, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditcted2020d3_en.pdf.

[6] UNDRR (2023), Technical guidance on application of climate information for comprehensive risk management, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, https://www.undrr.org/publication/technical-guidance-application-climate-information-comprehensive-risk-management.

[62] UNDRR (2022), Early warning system, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, https://www.undrr.org/terminology/early-warning-system.

[25] UNDRR (2020), Disaster Risk Reduction in Thailand: Status Report 2020, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, https://www.undrr.org/media/48642.

[24] UNDRR (2014), Progress and challenges in disaster risk reduction: a contribution towards the development of policy indicators for the post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, https://www.undrr.org/publication/progress-and-challenges-disaster-risk-reduction-contribution-towards-development-policy.

[86] UNDRR (2006), Global survey of early warning systems, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-survey-early-warning-systems.

[85] UNDRR (2004), Community Risk Maps: Know the dangers and get going!, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, https://www.unisdr.org/2004/campaign/booklet-eng/Pagina14ing.pdf.

[136] UNEP (2022), Ecosystem-based adaptation in Cambodia, United Nations Environment Programme, https://www.unep.org/topics/climate-action/adaptation/ecosystem-based-adaptation/ecosystem-based-adaptation-cambodia-0.

[74] UNEP (2016), Displacement and environment in Africa: What is the relationship?, United Nations Environment Programme, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/displacement-and-environment-africa-what-relationship.

[59] UNESCO (2020), United Nations World Water Development Report 2020: Water and Climate Change, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, United Nations Water, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372985.

[7] UNISDR (2015), Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015: Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-assessment-report-disaster-risk-reduction-2015.

[58] UNU-INWEH (2021), Ageing Water Storage Infrastructure: An Emerging Global Risk, https://inweh.unu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Ageing-Water-Storage-Infrastructure-An-Emerging-Global-Risk_web-version.pdf.

[19] Villacin, D. (2017), “A review of Philippine government disaster financing for recovery and reconstruction”, PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2017-21, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/173598/1/pidsdps1721.pdf.

[144] Wen, J. et al. (2023), “Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Their Linkages with Sustainable Development over the Past 30 Years: A Review”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, Vol. 14/1, pp. 1-13, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-023-00472-3.

[123] WHO (2019), Mental health workers by country, https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.HWF11v.

[124] WHO (n.d.), WHO Mental Health Atlas, https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/data-research/mental-health-atlas.

[89] Widiatmojo, R. et al. (2023), “Challenge on Picturing Indonesian Disaster Through Drone Journalism”, Jogjakarta Communication Conference (JCC), Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 15-19, https://jcc-indonesia.id/proceeding/index.php/jcc/article/view/32.

[18] Wisner, B. and J. Gaillard (2009), “An introduction to neglected disasters”, Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2/3, https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC51175.

[109] Wongphyat, W. and M. Tanaka (2020), “A Prospect of Disaster Education and Community Development in Thailand: Learning from Japan”, Nakhara: Journal of Environmental Design and Planning, Vol. 19, pp. 1-24, Faculty of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University, https://doi.org/10.54028/nj202019124.

[73] World Bank (2022), Forced displacement and social cohesion, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/social-cohesion-and-resilience/brief/forced-displacement-social-cohesion.

[27] World Bank Group (2018), Funds for Natural Disaster Prevention and Control in Vietnam: A Review, https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/fdfa/publikationen.html/content/publikationen/en/countries/vietnam/funds-natural-disaster.

[79] World Economic Forum (2022), Barriers to Migration, https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2022/in-full/chapter-4-barriers-to-migration/.

[106] WTO (2020), World Trade Report 2020: Government policies to promote innovation in the digital age, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr20_e.htm.

[105] Wu, L. et al. (2022), “The Impact of Government Subsidies on Technological Innovation in Agribusiness: The Case for China”, Sustainability, Vol. 14/21: 14003, MDPI AG, https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114003.

[69] Yamashita, S., R. Watanabe and Y. Shimatani (2016), “Smart adaptation activities and measures against urban flood disasters”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 27, pp. 175-184, Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.06.027.

[81] Zhe, W. et al. (2016), The Disaster and Emergency Management System in China, http://ccouc.org/_asset/file/policybrief-disaster-andemergmxsysinchina-final20161020.pdf.

Notes

← 1. Emerging Asia groups the ASEAN member countries – Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam – plus China and India.

← 2. The likelihood of displacement varies across the region. In Singapore, a high-income nation, the chance of experiencing displacement in a disaster is one in a million. In contrast in Lao PDR and the Philippines, this risk is more than 7 000 and 6 000 times higher, respectively (Lavell and Ginnetti, 2014[146]). The probability of displacement is more than 10 times higher for Laotians and Filipinos than for Indonesians, even though Indonesians also face various geophysical and weather-related hazards (Islam and Khan, 2018[80]).

← 3. India’s private sector suffered significant economic losses from a succession of natural disasters: losses of more than INR 70 billion (Indian rupees) from the Gujarat Earthquake in 2001; about INR 50 billion from the Mumbai Floods in 2005; about INR 120 billion from the Uttarakhand Floods; and more than INR 40 billion from Cyclone Phailin (Chatterjee and Shaw, 2015[143]).

← 4. Disaster risk reduction initiatives in Malaysia have been developed not only by the government but also by other stakeholders, including the private sector, often in close collaboration with NGOs. A leading animation service provider in Malaysia, Animasia, was approached by an NGO to support and participate in their disaster education programme for primary school students. Animasia enhanced disaster preparedness among students and built disaster resilience, ultimately creating a positive corporate image and generating more business development opportunities through collaboration with a popular NGO.

← 5. The private sector has engaged in disaster management through five types of CSR activities: philanthropic or charitable actions, contractual obligations, collaborative efforts, adversarial relationships, and unilateral initiatives.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment