Almost a year after Typhoon “Sendong” devastated the cities of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan in the northern part of Mindanao, Philippines, last December, the historically “typhoon-free” island experienced another similarly rare and intense tropical storm that struck on December 4. Super Typhoon “Pablo” slammed into Siquijor, Misamis Oriental, Surigao del Sur, Agusan del Sur, Compostela Valley, and Davao Oriental, hitting some of the same cities and towns still recovering from the havoc suffered during Sendong.

On Dec. 4, Typhoon Pablo slammed into Southern Mindanao, hitting some of the same cities and towns still recovering from the havoc suffered during Sendong. Photo/flickr user SCA Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget.

According to the Philippines Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), Pablo was 375 miles in diameter and packed gusts up to 130 mph with torrential rains on average over one inch per hour. Likewise, when Sendong made landfall, it dumped more than a month’s worth of average rainfall in just 12 hours, sparking flash floods in the middle of the night and trapping hundreds of thousands of residents. In relation to 40 years of meteorological records, Mindanao has not experienced such storms, heavy rainfall, and landslides since Typhoon Titang hit back in 1970.

According to the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), as of December 18, the death toll from Pablo had reached 1,046 people with 841 still missing, and damages to agriculture reaching $398 million, infrastructure $190.4 million, and private property $1.2 million.

Some blame the high death toll and Mindanao’s extreme vulnerability to such strong storms, floods, and landslides on the unabated illegal logging and mining operations in the area. However, there isn’t much scientific evidence from past flood tragedies to confirm this theory. The Society of Filipino Foresters issued a statement earlier this year referencing past typhoons Ondoy (2009) and Sendong (2011) and recognizing the fact that “forests can help minimize but cannot totally prevent the occurrence of floods” and that massive floods are more a result of weak infrastructure and the ever increasing amount of moisture in the atmosphere.

Although deforestation and environmental degradation play a role in amplifying the destruction that occurs during such extreme weather events, climate change is more to blame for directly affecting the severity of flooding endured than the cut logs and debris that clog waterways and lead to overflowing river banks. In the same sense, weak disaster preparedness and disaster risk management plans are also partly to blame for the large number of lives lost in natural disasters and for continuing to allow populations to live in geo-hazardous areas.

As The Asia Foundation’s country representative in the Philippines, Steven Rood, further explains: “The only time I saw a serious examination of the issue of illegal logging and mining causing more severe floods was more than a decade ago with respect to Ormoc City and the Typhoon Uring flooding tragedy that happened down in the Visayas in 1991 (in a JICA-funded flood mitigation control study). The data were clear – there was simply too much rain for any ecosystem to absorb, and too many people living along the river banks in danger zones. That there were logs washed down is undeniable, but this had nothing to do with the extent of the flood and little to do with the damages.”

According to IPCC, as average global temperatures rise, the warmer atmosphere can also hold more moisture, about 4 percent more per degree Fahrenheit temperature increase. The atmosphere’s water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988. A warmer atmosphere leads to more evaporation of ocean water, meaning that each tropical storm that forms has more potential water to pull from and therefore drench in its wake. The citizens of the communities in Southern Mindanao, especially along the coastal towns of Compostela Valley and Davao de Sur provinces who were the first to be hit by Pablo, had never before experienced that kind of typhoon in their whole lives.

Storms are becoming stronger, weather patterns are changing, and, frighteningly, this is becoming the “new normal.”  Given the fact that Manila was recently rated the second most vulnerable city in the world to climate change for 2013 (only behind Dhaka, Bangladesh), there is great merit given to efforts that can build the resiliency of communities to withstand such extreme weather events in the future. In the aftermath of Typhoon Ondoy in 2009, both local and international NGOs began lobbying for a national disaster management plan, which was eventually passed the following year and known as the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction Management Act of 2010. The new law illustrates a shift in the response of local authorities toward disaster risk reduction, rather than solely relying on response and relief.

Technical assistance is available, such as AusAID’s support to an aerial survey of metro Manila to generate a three-dimensional, geo-hazard map of the metropolis.In 2012, USAID/OFDA provided over $4.1 million for disaster risk reduction activities, mainly in the areas of food security and to improve local humanitarian coordination in the Philippines. These sort of climate change adaptation strategies are working. After Pablo, engineer Armen A Cuenca, the deputy in charge of Cagayan de Oro’s disaster risk reduction management office, said that “early warning alert systems and pre-planned shelters this year were one of the reasons there were zero casualties in the city, which has a population of around 700,000.”  Preparedness remains the key to resilience.

Kourtnii S. Brown is a program associate for The Asia Foundation’s Environment Programs in San Francisco. She can be reached at kbrown@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

From July 2011 to January 2012, Thailand encountered the worst flooding in five decades. The floods killed over 800 people and left millions homeless or displaced. Over three quarters of Thailand’s provinces were declared flood disaster zones, and the World Bank estimated that the economic loss exceeded $45 billion.

After being hit by the worst flooding in half a century, Thailand and its residents are on the long road to recovery. Photo: Arpaporn Winijkulchai

Thailand’s government was unprepared for the longevity and severity of the floods, and many communities felt that the Flood Response Operation Center (FROC) which was established to coordinate emergency response and provide regular communications to the public, was inadequate. Many communities felt the government was not supportive and, in many cases, looked to NGOs, the private sector, universities, and local organizations to provide up-to-date, accurate information.

The Asia Foundation’s senior program officer, Ruengrawee Pichaikul, shared her first-hand accounts of the floods in our blog, In Asia, last year, writing: “Though frustrating, I continued to examine the murky, and at times contradictory, statements from the political rivals to stay informed. Serving as substitutes for conventional media, Facebook and other social networking sites were buzzing with more useful and essential information – much of which was provided by experts and environmental NGOs.”

Some communities also reported being unfairly treated by the government during and after the disaster. For example, the government requested a community near Don Muang airport to bear the brunt of the flooding by building a large barrier in the area to retain most of the flood water in an attempt to keep it from reaching the inner areas of Bangkok. The government promised the community that they would be properly compensated for their sacrifice and therefore they agreed. Although some communities have received compensation as of this writing, the amount was less than promised, and even less than some other less-flooded areas received.

In recent weeks, people have staged multiple demonstrations, demanding timely, fair, transparent, and equitable compensation for their losses during the floods. The protesters claimed that the government has not provided clear standards or guidelines that explain why similar businesses and households with equivalent levels of financial impact from the floods are being compensated differently. Currently, compensation is based on official loss and damage assessments, with a maximum payment of 20,000 baht ($630). Yet, there have been reports of inconsistent compensation payouts to business and households that have suffered similar financial impact. For example, homes located in the same district with similar damage have reported receiving very different compensation without any clear explanation as to why.

Community activists are demanding that the government speed up the compensation process and develop a clear set of criteria for compensation, and have committed to continue protesting until their demands are met.

Immediately after the flood waters receded, the Thai government, led by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, unveiled its flood recovery plan. While the first and second phases of the three-stage national strategy for reconstruction focus on immediate flood relief and recovery measures, the third phase involves the pursuit of long-term solutions. The government has recently begun to transition to the last phase that aims to better equip Thailand for mitigating and adapting to future flood emergencies and the effects from other disasters that are a result of climate change and/or poor water management.

Two main concerns addressed by the flood recovery plan are restoring economic losses in flood-affected provinces and assuring international industrial enterprises operating in flood-prone areas. To restore confidence with foreign investors, the government has allocated a large amount of funding to industrial owners to build dykes to protect the industrial zone from future flooding and has held large seminars with investors to discuss how the government’s plan will protect businesses. Despite the government’s efforts, many industrial leaders have also expressed frustration with the lack of information from the government post-flood.

Last month, the government announced a request for proposals from companies to assist with a flood management program worth 350 billion baht ($11.7 billion). The proposed project has received criticism for being hastily developed and not having a clear terms of reference. Recently, the Engineering Institute of Thailand criticized the government’s program and called for the government to delay implementation and set up a team of experts to better assess and analyze the issues. The flood management program has also come under the scrutiny of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which has committed to closely monitor the implementation of the program. The NACC cautioned the government that creating a process with short timelines and hastily approving consultants will create more opportunities for corruption. These forewarnings have lead local communities and organizations to question the viability of the government’s flood management program.

Now, six months after the water has subsided in Bangkok, many residents wonder whether Thailand is ready for the 2012 flood season which is fast approaching. This looming deadline makes improving community and stakeholder participation in flood recovery, reconstruction, and mitigation efforts even more urgent.

The Asia Foundation, with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, has just launched a project to build communities’ resilience to large-scale floods. The program aims to improve coordination and collaboration among flood-affected people and groups. In this way, they can more effectively advance common interests and influence future policies, plans, and protocols on water management and disaster risk management. As flood management plans will directly and indirectly affect the livelihoods of millions of farmers, fishers, and communities, the project will also help give them greater voice and participation. We have also learned from experience that public participation can enhance the quality and effectiveness of flood mitigation and disaster preparedness measures.

While the 2011 flood disaster was exceptional in scale and impact, climate change projections suggest that natural disasters of this kind are likely to occur more frequently and more severely in Thailand in the years ahead. It is important to recognize that this unique moment needs to extend beyond the communities that were most seriously affected by the 2011 flooding and that Thailand needs to develop good practices, lessons learned, and knowledge-sharing to shape and influence broader and longer-term environmental governance in Thailand.

Teigan Allen is The Asia Foundation’s environmental program fellow and Santi Nindang is a program officer, both in the Foundation’s Thailand office. They can be reached at tallen@asiafound.org and santi@asiafound.org, respectively. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

On July 2 in Sendai, Japan, nearly a year and a half after the tragic earthquake and tsunami devastated the region, The Asia Foundation will participate in a Google conference to examine using open data in disaster relief. As the world is seeing stronger effects of climate change and other factors, floods, rising sea levels, tsunamis, and monsoons threaten the lives of millions, this is a timely moment to call attention to natural disaster management across both developed and developing countries. And, as nations across the globe embrace innovative information and communications technology tools to help support disaster management, the conference is a chance for leading experts in technology, emergency assistance, and development to come together to discuss progress and challenges ahead.

Asia Foundation Program Officer Michelle Chang speaks at Google's Big Tent Event in Japan.

On a regional scale, Asia represents an extremely rich set of ecosystems, especially given its geography. Livelihoods rely on water from the Mekong River as far north as China down through Southeast Asia, to the coastal zones of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Indus, and Meghna rivers in South Asia. However, these ecosystems, and the citizens that rely on them for their livelihoods, are fragile and exposed to the effects of flooding, storm surges, and other natural disasters. For example, last year, floods submerged much of Thailand’s central provinces, including parts of Bangkok, leaving over 800 people dead and affecting over 13 million people in the country and approximately US$45 billion in damages, according to the World Bank. Pakistan faced heavy monsoon rains that caused floods in 2010 that left one-fifth of Pakistan’s land under water, taking nearly 2,000 lives and affecting about 20 million people.

In the context of disasters, where numerous stakeholders are at risk, bridges need to be built between the government, relief agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the public. These open lines of communication are vital in tracking disaster zones, food and shelter, medical aid, infrastructural damages, and other risks that disasters pose. This information can be shared with victims and victim’s families, as well as government agencies, relief organizations, and other entities with a role to play in disaster response. Tools such as the Personal Finder and Open GeoSMS are in increasingly greater demand across the world, and particularly, Asia.

The role of technology and ICT in disaster relief is increasingly instrumental in providing this information to citizens, relief organizations, government agencies, and the private sector. Already, ICT has an indispensable role in countries such as Kenya and Brazil in the form of mobile money. In Bangladesh and Indonesia, citizens use SMS to elicit and share perceptions on how governments are running elections. In India, The Asia Foundation is exploring how to equip citizens with mobile phone applications to collect data on government accountability and public service delivery. Right now, there are 2.9 billion mobile phone subscribers in Asia. This overwhelming pervasiveness presents a sanguine moment for these stakeholders: through cell phones, internet connectivity, crowdsourcing models, and social media outpourings have been able to turn information into data. This data can then be analyzed, mapped, visualized, and shared for millions of end users – governments, NGOs, relief agencies, victims, and victims’ families to take action on securing safety and missing family members. Granted, while much of this data collected still needs to be verified, cleansed of biases, and developed into a common language, the closing of the digital divide has introduced technology as the enabler of data sharing in disaster response scenarios.

Despite this new role for technology in disaster response, what should not be overlooked is the role that it can play in disaster preparedness. While countries are becoming faster, more effective, and more sophisticated in their response to populations in need of crisis response, they are not always focused on the preventive measures that this data can provide. Data trends – wind and temperature patterns, previously documented natural disasters, weak infrastructural areas, administrative boundaries, transportation networks, population statistics, populated areas, and others – can feed into risk plans that can help prepare for future disasters. With our local partner, Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (SOPAC) of the Secretariat of the Pacific Islands, the Foundation has been empowering key government officials to mainstream disaster and climate risk considerations into national planning and budgeting processes. Many of these people are now leading authorities in disaster management in the region, and are making new advances in technology applications for disaster preparedness and response. One of these applications based on an open-sourced, web-based platform is the Pacific Risk Information System, the largest collection of geospatial information for the Pacific Islands. The system provides risk assessments and hazard models of infrastructure, population statistics, and other country assets that help stakeholders detect natural disasters and identify protocols to equip citizens with the information they need to protect themselves as much as possible in future disasters.

ICT and open data have a bigger role to play than ever before in preventing and responding to disasters, as long as the end user is well informed enough to both trust the information and know where to find this data. More importantly, these end users – men, women, children, UN workers, ministry officials, NGOs and civil society – need to know what to do with this data. Good governance is woven throughout this dialogue of effective disaster preparedness and response, and needs to be clearly delineated before the pure innovation and excitement for any one technology is adopted.

The Asia Foundation, along with UNOCHA, Change Fusion, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, World Vision, iSPP, and NetHope, is participating with Google on its upcoming Big Tent Event: The Role of Technology in Disaster Preparedness and Relief on July 2, 2012, in Sendai, Japan. Read more about the event.

Michelle L. Chang is a program officer in the Governance and Law unit and is a co-chair of the Technology Working Group at The Asia Foundation. She will also be a speaker at a panel on open data at the Google Big Tent Event. She can be reached at mchang@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

While Thais are accustomed and well adapted to the annual flood season, the 2011 flooding crisis was the worst in five decades and caught the entire nation off guard.  The floods actually began in northern Thailand in May and continued through mid-January, ultimately submerging 65 of Thailand’s 77 provinces, including seven major industrial estates north of Bangkok, leaving 815 dead and 13.6 million affected. The World Bank ranked the flood emergency as the world’s fourth most severe natural disaster in terms of economic consequences.

Many agree that what was missing from the country's emergency flood response and relief agenda and mechanisms was a clear and consistent source of flood information and a two-way communication system. Photo: Arpaporn Winijkulchai

The enormity of the crisis exposed the realities of Thailand’s still nascent model for responding to natural disasters.  While the mainstream media was focused on the national election held on July 3, 2011, most Thais, especially those living in Bangkok, were not even aware of the floods that had begun in the North. The new government assumed office at the same time that the floods began to spread to the central part of Thailand, which presented immediate challenges to effectively manage the escalating crisis. However, despite offers to help, the new administration showed minimal openness to accepting international assistance and to engage with civil society. However, the incident did reveal the power of citizens – in particular, their ability to build a cohesive response to the crisis using technology and social media.

Prior to the 2011 floods, the government, private sector, and universities had designed and installed many flood and landslide early warning systems to help monitor and warn of these natural disaster risks. From a technical perspective, Thailand has the technology to handle the floods. So, with this technology in place, why did the 2011 flood emergency response measures unfold in such a seemingly chaotic manner?  Many agree that what was missing from the country’s emergency flood response and relief agenda and mechanisms was a clear and consistent source of flood information and a two-way communication system.

In early October 2011, when 25 provinces were already submerged, the government set up a Flood Relief Operation Centre (FROC) located in the Don Mueang Airport, with the intention to work with all ministries related to immediately solve the flood problem. The Centre provided flood information to the public via phone hotlines and a website, ThaiFlood.com. The website was first developed in cooperation with the private sector and civil society, supported by a pool of IT experts and volunteers. After some time, ThaiFlood.com announced its separation from FROC due to conflicts involving information sharing and dissemination and cooperation between the two entities. Citizens were increasingly frustrated to find that official government flood bulletins and television reporting were constantly changing — reported to under control at some points, while at other points threatening to flood vast sections of Bangkok and its suburbs. Even though FROC eventually improved its website by providing more reliable and up-to-date information online, trust was undermined and the public was reluctant to believe the information that it provided. In contrast, Thai people instantly trusted the newly independent, volunteer run ThaiFlood.com, which served as a clearinghouse for information provided on the websites of other relevant ministries or departments and from independent postings to Facebook and Twitter.

In retrospect, the problem was that the government pursued these measures with limited engagement of civil society, civil volunteers, the private sector, and the non-profit sector. The government was limited in gathering urgent flood information and people could not wait for its help. In these circumstances, citizens and civil society organizations began to help themselves by recruiting volunteers to gather new information on households in affected communities, and confirming the information that they needed to secure proper assistance. For example The Asia Foundation supported the establishment by the Thai Labor Solidarity Committee (TLSC), made up of five Worker Flood Relief Centers in Bangkok and neighboring flood affected provinces. A TLSC volunteer group working at these five centers gathered information about laborers who visited the centers and people living nearby, and set up a donation section to distribute food supplies to people of the area, especially those who did not have a house registered in the location, such as migrant labors and workers who came from different provinces.

Social media such as Facebook and Twitter also played a key role during the flood emergency. University students from different institutions developed a Facebook page to provide information on ensuring the safety of pets in the flood crisis. Users could find more information about the flood situation from the flood-related professionals on their Facebook pages and Twitter posts directly, including Seree Supratid, a lecturer on disaster management of Rangsit University, and Sasin Chalermlarp, a Secretary-General of Seub Nakhasathien Foundation. The Asia Foundation’s youth partners in the Deep South also used Facebook to reconnect with their friends in other parts of Thailand.

In light of these coordination issues, it is undeniable that the government, civil society organizations, NGOs, citizen volunteer groups and private sector are keen to use technology. The government has a greater role ahead to lead these numerous stakeholders to assess and build the technology capacity of the country, if it is prepared and committed to assume it.

Arpaporn Winijkulchai is The Asia Foundation’s film and publication officer in Thailand. She can be reached at arpaporn@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

In late March, Ho Chi Minh City’s residents braced for heavy windfall and flooding as tropical storm Pakhar – the first storm of the season – headed for the nation’s economic hub. Many residents were caught off guard, as experts declared the storm “abnormally early.” Although overall loss to lives and property were less than in past storms, experts are concerned by the changing patterns, warning that Vietnam is likely to be severely impacted by an increasing amount of weather extremes over the coming decades.

Floods and storms exact an enormous annual socio-economic toll on Vietnam. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimates that between 1990 and 2009, the country suffered annual economic losses equivalent to 1.3 percent of GDP, or $3.85 billion. Vietnam’s long coastline and densely populated low-lying deltas make it particularly at risk to flooding, and 70 percent of the population and the majority of Vietnam’s productive capacity are located in these areas that are directly vulnerable to water-related natural disasters. In 2011 alone, some 700,000 people were affected by flooding. To make matters worse, rapid growth and an expanding population are stretching natural resources and infrastructure to the breaking point.

Vietnam’s hundreds of thousands of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), which make up the backbone of the nation’s economy, will have to play a critical part in reducing the risk of natural disasters and climate change on their businesses and their communities.

Vietnam's small and medium businesses represent more than 90 percent of the country's businesses, employ almost 80 percent of the population, and produce over 40 percent of national GDP. Photo by Karl Grobl.

SMEs represent more than 90 percent of the country’s businesses, employ almost 80 percent of the population, and produce over 40 percent of national GDP. These locally rooted enterprises provide the jobs, income, and services important for the development of vibrant communities. Their ability to bounce back after a natural disaster, re-establish production and continue to provide employment to local workers and adapt to the long-term pressures of climate change is a critical determinant of both local community and the country’s overall resilience to climate change. However, most climate change projects continue to fail to engage small and medium enterprises.

This neglect of a vital sector is even more glaring in view of their lack of preparedness. A survey that The Asia Foundation conducted in 2011 showed that the majority of SMEs have little to no information about or plans for disaster preparedness, even though many of them have incurred heavy losses from floods and storms in recent years. Almost 85 percent of businesses reported that they have been frequently hit by seasonal storms, 45 percent by floods, and 12 percent by cyclones and high tide. The survey also showed that more than 60 percent of businesses had incurred losses caused by natural disasters in the last five years. Of those who suffered losses, 5 percent of the businesses experienced such significant damage that the business operations they had before the disaster were no longer viable and they were forced to start a new business. Thirty percent indicated heavy losses to their facilities and products damaged, leaving business operations and productivity affected for a significant period. A further 43 percent identified slight losses. Businesses were particularly concerned that their most important physical assets such as office buildings and factories, products, and equipment are left extremely vulnerable to future disasters.

Despite such crippling losses, plans to increase disaster risk preparedness among SMEs are still generally minimal, if they exist at all. Of the 117 businesses in the survey that had been hit by natural disasters in the last five years, 46 percent have not yet developed disaster preparedness and response plans, with 33 percent having a disaster preparedness plan but no capacity to implement the plan. So, even in areas that are prone to floods and storms, most of the businesses reported that they have not yet developed effective disaster preparedness and response plans. The increasing economic and social costs on account of losses caused by natural disasters clearly indicates the need for strengthened disaster risk reduction and management to minimize both human and economic losses.

Since early last year, we have been working in three vulnerable provinces: Da Nang, Khanh Hoa, and Nghe An to build more effective and sustainable disaster response programs.* We have conducted a training program focused on SMEs with over 180 local business people from more than 140 companies participating so far. We have also worked with local business associations to develop locally based corporate social responsibility initiatives that assist with community disaster preparedness, as well as publishing a handbook on CSR giving for businesses. We’ve also conducted a local media campaign to help spread the message.

By engaging Vietnam’s powerful small business community, we hope that we can help strengthen the future resilience of Vietnam to respond and adapt to the effects of climate change.

*This program is supported by the USAID Office for U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA).
Nguyen Tri Thanh is the Environment Program Officer in The Asia Foundation’s Office in Vietnam. He can be contacted on ntrithanh@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

My colleagues in The Asia Foundation’s Environment Program recently returned from Bangkok, where the Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Forum they were scheduled to attend was canceled due to the worst flooding in Thailand in 60 years.

Bangkok residents evacuate flooded neighborhoods during Thailand's worst flooding in over half a century. Experts predict that massive floods will hit Asia’s coastal megacities even harder due to stronger storms and sea level rise. Photo: Voice of America.

The disaster resulted in over 600 deaths, approximately 10 million lives affected, $21 billion in lost revenues from major industries, and an estimated $24 billion dollars in damage to property, according to the World Bank. Technical specialists blame the disaster in part on an unusually wet monsoon period coupled with the bad timing of a seasonal high tide in the Gulf of Thailand, but also on the government’s inefficient watershed management and infrastructure for draining high floodwaters on the Chao Phraya river.

In October, the Foundation’s country representative in Thailand, Kim McQuay, blogged about the poor readiness of the recently elected Puea Thai government and the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority to protect communities and businesses and to coordinate recovery for flood victims. In November, In Asia interviewed McQuay about the lack of foresight and responsibility on behalf of a succession of Thai governments and other stakeholders to undertake necessary preventive and mitigation plans that build resiliency to natural disasters.

So it’s sadly fitting that a flood prevented a network of adaptation practitioners from meeting to discuss solutions on how to make watershed management, among other challenges for strengthening disaster preparedness, more resilient to climate change. In fact, it was in the script. According to a 2009 World Wildlife Fund report, massive floods – predicted to be even harder on Asia’s coastal megacities due to stronger storms and sea level rise – are bound to disrupt business-as-usual more frequently by 2050 as a result of missed investments in crucial urban infrastructure over the past few decades.

The floods in Thailand are just a glimpse of what’s to come. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) forecasts that urban population will rise from the present 3.2 billion to nearly 5 billion by 2030 and that three out of every five people will live in cities. Asia will be home to at least 10 megacities (cities with populations over 10 million), many of which are located in tropical areas or floodplains, and where climate scientists predict rainfall intensity and temperature are likely to increase the most. Many other Asian megacities, including Dhaka, Manila, Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta, and Mumbai, are particularly vulnerable to climate change flood risks as a result of their low-lying coastal location, total area prone to flooding, and expected population growth.

To compound this risk, each of these urban centers also has densely growing populations of urban slum dwellers and squatter settlements located in high-risk, flood-prone areas. In many cases, these areas do not benefit from a city’s watershed management infrastructure that handles potable water access, water runoff flows, water pollutants, or solid waste. As a result, inhabitants of slums and squatter settlements are far more susceptible to vector-borne and water-borne illnesses (such as malaria and dengue) even under normal conditions, and more so immediately after flooding occurs.

Yet socioeconomic factors in Asia’s megacities, such as weak economies, inadequate health care, corruption, and poor governance, continue to overshadow efforts to position climate change adaptation as a top priority in today’s urban planning. A recent Maplecroft Climate Change and Environmental Risk Atlas predicts that infrastructure, already inadequate in many Asian cities, will struggle to cope as urban populations grow, “making disaster responses less effective at a time when disasters might become more frequent.” The World Bank states that the total costs of damage from floods to buildings and land subsidence are likely to be significant under the most severe climate change scenario (A1F1), ranging from 2 to 6 percent of Southeast Asia’s regional GDP over the next 30 years.

As we plan development goals in Asia for 2012, urban environmental issues should increasingly be on the development agenda given the predicted additional high costs associated with threats from climate change. Urban planners throughout Asia need to prioritize disaster preparedness and infrastructure that builds resilience to potential impacts from heavier rains, stronger storms, and sea-level rise. Bangkok, Beijing, Delhi, Dhaka, Hanoi, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Karachi, Mumbai, Seoul, Shanghai, and Tokyo are already participating in the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, a network of major global cities that are sharing knowledge and tactics for responding to climate change. The C40 Group urges governments and heads of state to empower and provide resources to city leaders in order for them to be well equipped to take action within their cities.

A broad, low-cost place to start for climate action planning should include implementing sustainable water management approaches that work to imitate the way nature handles high water flows and water runoff, such as through increased use of green roofs, urban gardens, and greening urban landscapes. More long-term, nuanced responses must be city-specific strategies that include a combination of coordinated zoning guidelines, flood monitoring stations, a system of levees and retaining walls, waste water treatment systems, and communicating flood warnings to residents.

A new year offers a new opportunity for city leaders in the areas at greatest risk in Asia to set solid climate action plans and begin ramping up investments in climate change adaptation to become resilient to more frequent natural disasters. Anything less will be met with more of the same.

Note: The Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Forum has been rescheduled for March 2012 in Bangkok.

Kourtnii S. Brown is a program associate for The Asia Foundation’s Environment Programs in San Francisco. She can be reached at kbrown@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

The flooding that submerged one-third of Thailand this year was the worst the country had seen in 50 years. Sixty-five provinces and over 4 million people have been affected, tens of thousands have lost jobs, and nearly 700 were killed. Nine provinces remain underwater. Thailand’s National Economic and Social Development Board slashed its projected 2011 GDP to 1.5, down from its pre-flood projection of as much as 4 percent. The World Bank estimates that rehabilitation costs could reach $25 billion.

Primary and secondary schools were not spared from the destruction. A total of 2,237 schools were destroyed or damaged. According to the Ministry of Education, repairs will cost an estimated $44.2 million.

Floodwaters in Thailand damaged thousands of schools, including Angthong Temple Nursery School above, located on the shore of the Chao Phraya River north of Bangkok. Photo: Angthong Temple Nursery School.

Principals from four of the worst affected areas that I visited recently said students missed 25 or more class days on average, which were made up by staying an hour longer each day and, in some cases, coming in on Saturdays. Also, because their workplaces were flood-damaged, many parents could not work for a month or two, dramatically reducing household income and their ability to provide for their families. Even though tuition, lunch, and uniforms at public schools are free, students must pay for courses not required by the Ministry of Education. Ang Thong Nursery, located on the shore of the Chao Phraya River north of Bangkok, for example, offers computer classes and English and Chinese instruction with foreign teachers, totaling $33 per year. These skills are critical to the future success in Thailand’s highly populated and competitive job market but were disrupted due to the flood damage.

Thankfully, in the schools that I visited, very few students have had to drop out of school completely due to financial hardship, as schools are trying to be flexible and accommodating in order to keep students in classrooms. Still, a long road to rebuilding devastated schools and libraries lies ahead. The Ministry of Education announced recently that the priority right now is to rebuild basic infrastructure, followed by replacing computers and library books. I spoke recently with principals from four schools in a few of the hardest hit areas, including Ayudhaya – a UNESCO World Heritage site and Thailand’s temple-studded former capital – and its neighboring province, Ang Thong. Despite some rebuilding efforts that are just beginning, they said their rehabilitation needs remain extensive, and each school is dependent on the central government for the funds needed for repairs, which range from $11,700 to $233,000.

At Wat (temple) Tal Ched Chor School in Ang Thong, waters rose to nearly nine feet, and stayed for over two months. “We’re next to the Chao Phraya River. The cement dike upstream broke at about 9 p.m., and by daybreak, water was over one meter high,” said the school’s director Suthep Sangvises. At nearby Wat Ang Thong Nursery School, the water was waist-high within an hour after the dike broke. All 190 primary school students, as well as the computers and ceiling fans at Wat Tal Ched Chor were relocated in time, but more than 100 windows still need to be repaired and replaced, as do most of the chairs and desks. Many schools were submerged for weeks and some for over a month.

One hour after the cement dike upstream broke, the water was already waist-high at Wat Ang Thong Nursery School. Photo credit: Angthong Temple Nursery School.

Sathinee Pong-Aksorn, the director of a private, K-11 school in Ayudhaya, told me that the flooding had ruined about 200 of its 1,000 library books – a significant loss, she said. Wat Ang Thong Nursery School was able to save its library books, as its library is on the second floor. However, they were not able to save the books that were stored on the bookshelves in each classroom in time.

Books for Thailand Foundation, the distribution arm for The Asia Foundation’s Books for Asia program in Thailand, is helping to rehabilitate flood-damaged libraries. In conjunction with the Annika Linden Foundation and The Nation Group (a Thai multimedia company), we are donating 145 titles of English- and Thai-language books to 126 schools in January. We’re also joining with the American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand’s Adopt-a-School program to donate books on a gradual basis, starting now with 30 titles for secondary schools and following up with primary school books when our inventory is replenished in February 2012. We’re also working with the Ministry of Education to gradually replenish the libraries of all 2,093 primary and secondary schools damaged by the flood. Several universities were also damaged, affecting 10,000 students, and we’re currently assessing how we can help rebuild their libraries as well.

As a nation, Thailand’s efforts are now focused on recovering and rebuilding – not only its buildings, but, more importantly, the livelihoods of its citizens. The challenge now is for Thais to cherish the cohesiveness with which they came together to overcome the devastation from the flooding and apply that unity to solving the gulfs which divide us. In order to achieve this, education and a thirst for knowledge among our students will continue to be of paramount importance.

*Note, the figure for schools damaged in the floods has been changed from the original version.

Burin Kantabutra is the vice chairman of Books for Thailand Foundation. He can be reached at books4thailand@gmail.com. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

In the early weeks of October, people across Thailand experienced great heartache and even disbelief as they watched news coverage of rising floodwaters submerging several sizable industrial factories north of Bangkok one by one. During the first weeks of the flooding, we listened patiently to the hazy and tedious information announced by the government’s Flood Relief Operation Center (FROC).

The recent flooding in Thailand submerged four million acres, leaving over 500 dead and 9 million affected. Above, residents wade through deep water to get to their homes and shops. Photo by flickr user Philip Roeland.

Preoccupied by the government flood news, I lost focus on what to do next. At that point, I was primarily concerned over the likelihood that my house would be affected by the flood, how soon and for how long, and when I should plan to evacuate. Unfortunately, I found the information from the FROC and other sources not very helpful or specific and difficult to interpret. We heard assurances such as:

“At this moment several thousand million cubic meters of water are flowing down from the north; everyone should stay calm because your government is capable and ‘Ao Yoo’ (which translates as ‘we can handle it’). We will build sandbag walls and close major water sluice gates so that Bangkok is guaranteed to be safe.”

Just a few days later, all these assurances seemed to float away with the rising flood waters. News coverage showed metal roofs of houses and factories glinting in the sun, surrounded by expanses of flood water. We watched as thousands of people waded through flooded streets, while others floated in boats and on hand-made rafts or truck beds, carrying their essentials above their heads in search of dry refuge. Many held their beloved dogs and pets, pressing against waist, chest, and neck-high water levels. We watched this watery expanse churn through sewage drains and creep across road surfaces, growing bigger and higher. The experience was not so much frightening as nerve-wracking.  

Still lacking concrete information regarding the future status of my neighborhood, I started examining satellite aerial images online. From these, I learned that my house is located at the last point that the water would flow through in Bangkok before continuing to the ocean. In haste, I built small dykes at my front and back doors, stocked enough drinking water and food supplies for three weeks, and uncovered an electrical switch board for the first time since I moved into my house. When these steps failed to relieve my anxiety, I took the liberty of cramming all my family members and pets into my small city car and drove non-stop to my dry home in my native Korat province in the Northeast. Once there, I realized that perhaps this was a premature evacuation. I also felt a bit guilty for not staying in Bangkok to help those who were really suffering in the flood.

Though frustrating, I continued to examine the murky, and at times contradictory, statements from the political rivals – the Pheu Thai national government which managed FROC and the Democrat governor of Bangkok, to stay informed.

Serving as substitutes for conventional media, Facebook and other social networking sites were buzzing with more useful and essential information – much of which was provided by experts and environmental NGOs – regarding details on the direction of the flood waters, high flood risk areas, and shelter locations.

Now it is clear that many larger, critical questions remain, such as: What is the main cause of the flood incidence? Who triggered the problem? Who is to blame for letting the situation go downhill? What if food supplies, electricity, and piped water are cut off? Who will control the situation if people are so overwhelmed with stress that they begin to fight each other in the same way that wet and dry villages up-country had fought over the opening and closing of water sluice gates?

The longer that these questions go unanswered, the more Thais are likely to become disenchanted by the new administration’s ability to lead. Many people have concluded that neither the national government nor the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority were sufficient in their handling of flood management and victim support. Reports are circulating that people ignored government shelter services, with only a few hundred people taking refuge in shelters that could accommodate thousands. Alternatively, we are beginning to realize that people regarded the volunteers, non-profits, media, and soldiers as the real flood managers, who – in a moment of crisis – stepped in to fill a critical role that many felt our government was not.

In my view, this crisis and the issue of flood water management provides the impetus for a new round of political reform in Thailand. In the next few days, I expect that the flood waters are likely to reach my home. It may sound ridiculous that I should welcome this, but I feel the need to equally share this gloomy time with neighbors and friends who have already been affected. Despite the tragedy, perhaps in trade-off for all the damage and stress caused, the flood crisis could actually propel Thailand in the right direction.

Ruengrawee Pichaikul is The Asia Foundation’s senior program coordinator in Thailand. She can be reached at jieb@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Several weeks of the worst flooding Thailand has experienced in 50 years has left more than 400 people dead and affected over 9 million Thais. Although central Bangkok has been spared thus far, many neighborhoods in greater Bangkok and adjacent provinces remain submerged. The country faces economic losses and recovery costs in the billions, and concerns about health and other consequences of the flooding are rising.

It would appear that central Bangkok has been spared the flooding that has devastated communities to the north and west. How are Bangkok’s residents reacting?

Thais who live and work in central Bangkok are naturally relieved that the city center has not experienced flooding on the scale predicted a few days earlier. At the same time, they are acutely conscious of the fact that friends, relatives, and fellow Thais in neighborhoods to the north and west of the city center, and those close to the Chao Phraya River, which bisects Bangkok, have been seriously affected, and that the crisis is far from over. The greatest concern here in Bangkok, which has dominated headlines for the last two days and sparked political tensions between Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra, is that flooding will eventually affect a large percentage of the capital, but at a pace slower than originally forecast.

Sandbags along the Chao Phraya River in Nonthaburi province outside of Bangkok. Photo by flickr user Remko Tanis.

Last Wednesday, the government announced that floodwaters had reached so great a volume in communities to the north of Bangkok that the combination of emergency embankments and adjustable water gates that had protected the capital to date could no longer contain the flooding. Having exhausted all stop-gap measures, the authorities insisted that they had no other option left than to initiate a controlled release of the floodwaters through the Chao Phraya and the labyrinth of canals or klongs that flow through and around the capital. Statements issued by the central government and the Bangkok Municipal Authority predicted that the Chao Phraya, having already reached a record level, could rise by a further one to two meters as a seasonal coastal high tide effect resisted the flow of floodwater to the Gulf of Thailand. The increased volume would cause the river to overflow its banks and flood the communities that flank it, spill from those adjacent neighborhoods, and eventually flood all of central Bangkok. The government declared a five-day holiday starting last Thursday to allow residents time to prepare for flooding or to leave the capital at its encouragement.

Thursday and Friday passed with virtually no flooding in central Bangkok beyond the banks of the Chao Phraya, while individual neighborhoods to the north and west continued to flood in domino succession as barricades gave way one after another to the tremendous water pressure bearing on them. By the weekend, as floodwaters crept from one neighborhood to the next, a human factor was added to the equation as some residents reached their limit of patience and took steps to accelerate the release of floodwater. Concern shifted next to Saturday and the anticipated peak tidal effect in late afternoon. Government update bulletins described a series of potential flooding scenarios that were each dependent on whether three critical floodwalls remained intact; however, with the exception of some temporary breaches of floodgates whose local effects were contained by swift repair efforts, the city center remained dry beyond neighborhoods bordering the Chao Phraya.

This same pattern has continued for the last three days. How does one account for it? Some independent analysts have suggested that the government did not actually release the surrounding floodwaters on the scale originally announced – perhaps because the seasonal costal high tides posed greater risk and uncertainty than authorities were prepared to assume. The slower spread of flooding from neighborhood to neighborhood in the northern and western suburbs of Bangkok is consistent with the slower release of water before or after the high tide peaked and the continued failure of emergency embankments.

It remains to be seen whether central Bangkok will stay dry, or whether it is just a matter of time before the floodwaters reach the city center.

Some reports claim that adjacent communities in the direct line of flooding were sacrificed in order to “save” Bangkok – Thailand’s economic hub. What are your thoughts on how this was handled?

As the emergency unfolded, political attention appeared to shift quite rapidly from the plight of Ayutthaya and other provinces to the north of Bangkok, which had borne the brunt of the early and most serious flooding, to the fate of the capital. Three months into its term, the Pheu Thai government faced a nightmare political situation in assuming responsibility for a natural disaster that any government would be hard pressed to resolve to the satisfaction of everyone affected or at risk. With the sharpest critics of government concentrated in Bangkok, it came as no surprise that the government initially appeared to be taking every possible measure to spare the capital.

It is difficult to say whether this was precisely the course taken by the government as flooding threatened Bangkok, or whether central Bangkok was spared in the short term by a combination of factors that weighed before and after the announcement that the floodwaters could no longer be contained. Whatever the case, media coverage left little doubt that communities to the north and west of Bangkok have been hardest hit by flooding. After several days, the patience of these communities has begun to fray. Tensions erupt as citizens confront police and other government authorities in a push-and-pull struggle to tear down or protect the sandbag embankments and floodgates that block the release of floodwaters that have submerged their homes and businesses for several days.

We have seen some powerful images of these confrontations in newspapers and television news footage, but what have registered more poignantly are the widespread gestures and expressions of selfless goodwill by residents of the most severely affected neighborhoods. With their homes submerged, and their children and portable possessions floating on makeshift rafts or sheltering on highway overpasses, those suffering the most still express deep concern for neighboring communities that are threatened by the next movement of floodwaters and work hard to protect their neighbors from a similar fate.

Some say that the rapid expansion of Bangkok in recent years has prevented drainage of annual floodwaters, and contributed to the devastation. How much is this being considered?

Development planning clearly ranks high in the list of disposing factors. Technical specialists have insisted that poorly conceived land, water, and urban development management policies by a succession of governments and other stakeholders are a key factor in the escalation of flood risk, not only in Bangkok but throughout Thailand. During monsoon season, a 30-minute downpour can raise water levels in the streets of Bangkok neighborhoods by a foot. If a rainstorm can have this effect, imagine the challenge of routing millions of cubic meters of floodwater through the capital. In painting a mental image of flooding, one pictures a wall of water passing through a neighborhood, but this is not the only form it takes. Thai friends describe the elaborate measures taken to sandbag their compounds, only to discover that their efforts were for naught as floodwaters rush straight up from sewers and drains. These and other examples leave little doubt that a generation of urban development policies – or lack thereof – has exacerbated the risk of flooding. As specialists take stock of the 2011 experience and policy makers consider future mitigating options, it will be especially important to acknowledge and reflect on the tendency of a succession of governments and public officials to treat Thailand’s annual flooding as a series of ad hoc emergencies for which relief funding must be secured, rather than a predictable recurrent phenomenon that demands long-term planning and policy measures. Flooding, flood recovery, and future mitigation efforts are fundamentally governance issues.

What types of preparations did communities in affected areas take?

Thai communities and business interests have been extraordinarily resourceful in preparing for the flood, with the scale and scope of measures taken adjusted deftly to changing circumstances and perceived risk. As a first step, Thais stocked up on key essentials. Bottled water, canned fish, dried noodles, pet food, toilet paper, and other non-perishable staples and convenience items disappeared from supermarket shelves. Sandbags were stacked in family compounds and business places. On Saturday, I took a walk down the commercial high street of my Bangkok neighborhood. In the span of two days following the announcement by authorities that central Bangkok was bound to flood, shop owners hired bricklayers to construct elegantly simple, three-foot high barriers that have left shops water-tight. Customers climb sandbag steps to enter and leave the shops, but otherwise business continues. From the earliest days of the crisis, Thais have put mobile technology and social networking to work to monitor and report on the flooding, establish networks for follow-up relief and recovery initiatives, relay information to affected neighborhoods on available support mechanisms, and reunite families that have been separated by the emergency. As the floodwaters recede, this dimension of the flood response will be fascinating to analyze and reflect on.

What will be Thailand’s greatest challenges in the long-term as it recovers from the country’s worst flooding in 50 years?  

In flooding emergencies of this kind, the lines blur from the outset, with the recovery process starting in some neighborhoods while the crisis continues to play out in others. It will take some time for the most seriously flooded communities in the provinces north of Bangkok and immediately surrounding the capital to drain, at which point public authorities, the private sector, and relief and recovery support CSOs can take full stock of the damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure and update the recovery cost estimates calculated to date. We have already observed the sanitation and associated public health risks that arise when communities are inundated with water of such poor quality, so this is bound to be a priority concern.

Beyond the immediate relief efforts, longer-term recovery challenges will include: resumption of industrial production in the dozens of factories in Ayutthaya, Nakhon Sawan, and other provinces whose suspension of operations has left wage earners without income; restoring essential electrical, water, and other services to flooded communities; and assessing the impact on schools, hospitals, and other critical social services. It will also be important to take stock of certain unique challenges posed by the flooding, which are of particular interest to The Asia Foundation and our Thai partners. Examples include the special circumstances of migrant communities whose members are hesitant to seek government services out of fear that they may be deported, and resolving the legal problems that confront ordinary citizens who have lost to the floodwaters the key identity documents and other papers required to qualify for government assistance, file insurance claims, or seek compensation.

Foreign investor confidence is also an issue of growing concern, as it becomes clear that some flooded factories in the industrial heartland of Ayutthaya and neighboring provinces will require massive reconstruction or rebuilding. Will foreign and domestic industries be prepared to make further investments in areas that could potentially flood again? Will they be prepared to work in cooperation with government on recovery and future flood preparedness measures?

Perhaps the greatest challenges will be political, as the government and its political opponents take stock of the flooding and the lessons to be drawn from the experience in setting policies that will reduce the risk of similar emergencies in future. In the weeks ahead, some will criticize the government for its handling of the crisis, while others will congratulate it for a job well done. Ordinary Thais who have experienced the effects of the flooding or been wracked by worry that their neighborhood could be the next to flood will look to their political leaders to set differences aside, resist the urge to point blame, and work together in immediate relief and recovery efforts. An opportunity presents itself for political leaders to turn a wrenching experience into something positive by cooperating in putting policies, procedures, and enhanced governance practices in place that will help to avoid crises of this kind in future.

In response to the flooding throughout Thailand, The Asia Foundation’s partner organization, Give2Asia, has launched a Thailand Flood Relief Fund to aid in relief efforts. Read more.