Dr Patricia Lewis
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and depending where you are in the world. Welcome to this Chatham House webinar on Revitalizing Resilience. My name is Patricia Lewis. I’m the Research Director for Conflict, Science and Transformation, the Director of the International Security Programme at Chatham House.
A few housekeeping notes before we begin. This webinar is taking place on the record and is being recorded. Please do tweet using the #CHEvents, if you are – want to do so and please submit questions throughout the event using the ‘Q&A’ function. During the questions and answers session I can invite individuals to repeat the questions they have submitted in the ‘Q&A’ box, using their microphone. So, please make a note alongside your question if you do not wish to speak and would prefer me to read out your question.
The COVID-19 pandemic has obviously renewed a lot of interest in resilience as a framework for thinking about how we organise ourselves. A number of countries, cities, companies and communities better understood their vulnerabilities in this pandemic and acted proactively and some stayed ahead of the curve in response and recovery, others fared less well. And this webinar wants to explore what this means for all sorts of other potential crises, as well as this one, and what we can learn from it. And what are the requirements for resilience planning, what are the key aspects and indicators of resilience? How can political leaders deliver greater public understanding and support for the concept of resilience and how do we build in incentives for resilience planning in our systems?
We’re joined today by three fantastic experts, to share with us their knowledge and views on how to build in resilience, so that we each – that we are better prepared for the next crisis, whatever it might be. Each speaker will present some of their thoughts and ideas and then I’ll quiz them a bit and then I’ll turn to you, the audience, for your questions. So, first up we have Dr Megumi Muto, who’s the Deputy Director of the Ogata Sadako Research Institute for Peace and Development at the Japan International Co-operation Agency, JICA. Previously, Dr Muto oversaw environment climate and sustainability at JICA, as the Director-General of the Global Environment Department. She represented JICA at the OECD as the Chief Representative in France and was responsible for the Philippines and the Pacific. She’s written extensively on the impact side of infrastructure and she look – contributes to books with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, etc., and also looking at the impact of climate change on Asian coastal megacities, or industrial clusters, in Africa. She holds a PhD in Developmental Economics, an MBA from Princeton and an EBMA from HEC Paris. Megumi, over to you, we look forward to what you have to say.
Dr Megumi Muto
Okay, thank you very much, Patricia. We find ourselves in a trilemma, protecting lives and health, versus keeping the economy going and versus freedom of individuals. Japan’s case might not be the best example, but we are managing somewhat, partly due to the ex-ante risk reduction. It consists of basic things, such as universal healthcare and investing in lifelines, especially at the local levels. Also, common understanding of and general trust on risk communication and how to behave during times of emergency, reflecting the hard lessons from past natural calamities has proven to an asset.
I will, first, try to frame the issues from the lens of disaster risk reduction, or DRR, the central concept of the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Japan has a history of mega-sized natural calamities like the Kobe earthquake 1995, the East Japan earthquake 2011, and multiply – multiple incidents of super typhoons, including last year’s, and each time we have learned hard lessons. With overwhelming hazards, exposure and vulnerabilities, it is imp0ssible to just manage during disasters. It is imperative to reduce the risk ex-ante. Thus, the Sendai Framework is not disaster risk management, but disaster risk reduction. Of course, we cannot reduce all the risks ex-ante. For the residual, yet still very largely at risk, we have to prepare for it, take emergency response actions when hit and Build Back Better, incorporating ex-ante measures for the next hazard. This continuous learning process is key, like the Toyota-style Kaizen.
Now, what is disaster risk reduction in real sense? For earthquake, first comes the structural measures, such as enhancing seismic resilience. For floods, often induced by typhoon, it is dams, retarding basins, riverbanks and dikes and so on. Land planning and zoning are also keys. Non-structural measures include business continuity plans of the local governments, enterprises, communities, including emergency communication and evacuation plans and this is resilience à la Sendai.
With this framework of disaster risk reduction, how we can interpret the current pandemic? This is the main question of the day. There is no hard structural measure to directly reduce the hazard shock. Almost every measure relies on human behaviour, nudging individuals and herding groups of people, including vaccines, a powerful disaster reduc – disaster risk reduction tool, but needs people’s consensus. It is a litmus test for every layer of governance, not just the governan – government side, but the side of the society and people as well.
The word ‘trust’ counts heavily, both leadership and followership is needed. I, personally, think that we are entering together into the unknown territory of resilience governance. In trying to look into this resilience governance, we do not need to jump to discussions juxtaposing democracy state and authoritarian states. We can start by the composing elements of resilience governance, using the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. The first layer is understanding risks. The second layer is strengthening risk governance. The third layer is investing in risk reduction and the fourth, the last one, is enhancing preparedness for effective response and to Build Back Better.
Scientists are doing a great job, but it is part of par – stage number one. Insurance is also important but works best exposed. Each government, society and individual should create own narratives to plan and follow through all the stages one to four. I do not have concrete answers. Each reality is so context specific, but at least the Sendai Framework may give us an initial guidance on how to frame the question of resilience governance.
My little concern in the current debate of Building Back Better or greener is that there is tremendous attention to make it greener and carbon reducing process. While I completely agree with the intention, we may wish to take a little extra time to think in detail what could be the main component of disaster pandemic risk reduction and Building Back Better and whether they work for each and every person. Thank you very much.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much, indeed, Megumi. Now we’re going to turn to Mihir Bhatt, who is the Director of the All India Disaster Mitigation Institute, which works on disaster reduction and resilience building work in over 80 districts and 53 cities in India. He works on emerging uncertainties in marginal environments, such as coastal cities, delta and desert settlements and on clean air campaigns. He has received the Russell E. Train Fellowship for Environmental Leadership, the Ashoka Fellowship for Social Enterprise and the Eisenhower Fellowship for Leadership and he’s a Fellow of the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights. Mihir, very glad to have you here.
Mihir Bhatt
Thank you so much. Thank you so much, it’s a great pleasure to be here and I’m obviously going to address the revit – the question of revitalising resilience, but I’m trying to offer a bottom-up view and I am going to be forward looking, in terms of what are the opportunities that we have in – as far as revitalising resilience is concerned? And this is going to be where the – both looking at risk reduction, as well as resilience building, so, we’ll look at both sides in my presentation. And I’m going to talk about the work, which is ongoing, not of the past, not in the future, but what’s happening as we speak.
So, I would first like to draw a recent meeting that UNDRR had in Bangkok for the Asia-Pacific, and they were discussing what should be the Asian Ministers’ points for discussion for the upcoming meeting. And one of the things which needs to be realised, as I picked up and learned from that, is that there is an existential crisis for all the disaster risk reduction agencies, for the humanitarian agencies and, also, for the climate change agencies. So, I see that there is a big opportunity for the reimagining resilience than we have seen that before. I think pre-COVID resilience idea and post-COVID, we are not quite post-COVID, but post-COVID resilience idea has to be different and what will it be, different in what way it would be, and that’s the first opportunity we all can work on.
The second thing, which has come up through our recent discussion with National Institute for Disaster Management of Government of India, European Union in India, and Institute for Local Self-Government, feared there is an increasing gap between the initiatives and operations. And that gap is particularly in risk during the COVID times quite a lot, so much so that the rate at which the risks are being produced is lower than the rate at which the risks are being reduced. So, that gap will continue to increase larger and larger and, therefore, there is an opportunity to find technology, measures, paradigms, monitoring, but how do you fill in this gap, so that we are at least catching up, if not preventing, to actually reduce risk? So, that’s a second opportunity where all of us can work together.
The third opportunity that I see, and this is coming from a very good organisation, network, based in UK, called ALNAP, and they’re looking at the state of the humanitarian system. And looking at the inception report, it was very useful to see that resilience offers the advantage of intersectionality. Resilience is a concept, which actually cuts across, at least on the ground, I think further up, as well, but that I will leave for others, it cuts across various sectors, various levels, various discipline, various interests, as well, civil, military, so on and so forth. So, the opportunity for us is to accelerate the augmentation with focus on localisation, which is what Dr Muto just told us, but with focus on three areas, which came up repeatedly in our work on the field.
One is the core governance, not only governance, but core governance, how more and more people can jointly govern risk reduction and resilience building. And I don’t mean anarchy in a negative sense, but if you go back to the anarchy has a concept of, you know, you being the agent of your own destination, from that point of view, some sort of anarchic aspect would be very useful. Second is co-ownership, so, risk reduction measures, assets, etc., have to be jointly owned. And third is, of course, the co-production, but actually production of ideas to actions to assets and to be jointly produced. So, that’s something, a big opportunity for us to look at.
The other opportunity which came up recently with our work with UNDP and UNICEF, is to – and what I would say universal, but not uniform, social protection, including insurance, as part of resilience measure. For some reason, resilience and social protection are being separated. I don’t think it’s intended, but they are being separated, and we need to bring it together and there is a big opportunity to do that for the donors, for the bilateral agencies, for the authorities, and civil society, as well. So, how do you make the funds and funding bring universal social protection and resilient concepts and more importantly, ideas and presence on the ground together? So, that’s a big opportunity that we have.
And the next opportunity is very much about urban. And we heard some mention of that in a very significant manner by Dr Muto, yeah, and she’s worked so much on the coastal cities, so I’m drawing on that, that we need to look at urban and there is enough urban resilience work being done, not enough, but fair amount of done. What is not being done, the gap there, is the urban agriculture, urban forestry, urban horticulture, in short, urban ecology-based resilience. And that’s a big scope where urban areas not only reduce the risk, but actually concretely contribute to resilience building. I mean, more trees in a city producing more oxygen would be, you know, air pollution measure that you could take. So, that’s a big area of that.
And the next one, and this is the last one, Patricia, I would stop at that, is to look at cascading disaster risk. And what is happening in India, for example, right now, and it may go beyond disaster risk, as well, because you can’t really capture risk that this is disaster risk, and this is social, and this is financial, and this is – all risks are so much connected. So, the cascading risks, such as we had ongoing pandemic, then we had Cyclone Amphan, and then we had malaria spread there, and then we had some difficulty on the border, and all those risks together were making the situation of responding far more difficult, especially in two areas: food security, nutrition included, and water security. So, that is a big opportunity for us to look at that how do you deal with food security, water security, as far as cascading effects of disaster risk, concerning some very interesting work that is being done by Shilpi at the University of Sussex, with which – whom we are working.
And the last example I would like to give of a good opportunity is to look at local markets, and we don’t talk about local markets in resilience building as much, or talk about that in risk reduction, as well. And in the end, it is the market which brings back the economy, the society, so on and so forth. So, what we have seen, especially during COVID, you may have seen that millions of people had to walk back from their cities to their villages in search of work, empty pockets, empty hand. And if we want that not to happen, and they do want not that to happen, what we need is local markets which would allow local production and local consumption take place as much as possible. I’m not against international markets, global markets, but I am definitely for that. So, that’s the last opportunity I wanted to underline, to point out, that these are the opportunities which exist to redefine resilience post-COVID, or as COVID comes to an end, at least in the UK does today, with the vaccine that’s being taken. Thank you so much.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much, indeed, Mihir and lastly, we’re delighted to welcome back Lord Martin Rees, who is an Astrophysicist, a Cosmologist, and the UK’s Astronomer Royal. He’s based at Cambridge University, where he’s the Co-Founder of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and previously the Professor of Astronomy and Director of the Institute of Astronomy. He’s a Fellow and Former Master of Trinity College and, frankly, has so many awards and prizes that I’d be here all morning listing them and you wouldn’t get to hear him. But just to say, he’s been President of the British Association for the Advancements of Science and Royal Astronomical Society and Trustee of the British Museum. He’s on all sorts of boards, he’s won all sorts of medals, but most importantly, he writes really good books, and they are books that are written specifically for people who are not necessarily Scientists, but people who are really interested in our world, what created our world and how we can protect our world. And would that be the right way to put it, Martin?
Lord Martin Rees
Hmmm, thank you for the plug for the book. It’s called On the Future, yes. But thank you very much, Patricia, and thank you for inviting me to participate. I don’t have the hands-on experience of the other two speakers, but I’ll talk about some generic issues, which I think are going to give us a bumpy ride through this century.
COVID-19 is really a wakeup call. We weren’t sufficiently prepared, and it reminds us that our interconnected world is vulnerable to a new class of emergent risks, which can cascade, not just nationwide, but even globally. There are other quite different ones, for instance, widespread breakdown in the electric grid, cyberattacks on the internet, bioterror or bioterror, or massive releases of radiation. These are things we have to contend with in our hi-tech society and any of these catastrophes could disrupt social order by overwhelming hospitals or choking off basic supplies. And compared to familiar threats: carcinogens in food, road accidents and the like, these long tail or black swan risks are neglected in public policy. And none, as yet, happened on the mega-scale of COVID-19 and we’re still complacent about them, but they could happen with minimal warning. Some are, of course, slowly emergent, like climate change, but many can emerge suddenly, like a pandemic.
Well, if you multiply the likelihood of such events by their consequences, as you would in calculating an insurance premium, you’d infer that it is prudent to commit far more resources to preventing them and enhancing our resilience if the worst happens. COVID-19 is thought to be going to cost the world about $20 trillion over the next few years and no-one could’ve said it was hugely unlikely, so clearly, on that perspective, would’ve been worth spending hundreds of billions to be better prepared for something like this. And preparedness, obviously, would include vaccines, etc., but I think to focus on the topic of this discussion, it would have required us to consider more the importance of resilience and, of course, there’s a trade-off between resilience and efficiency.
And just to give two examples that are relevant to the present crisis, if we depend on long supply chains for our production and one link in that chain breaking can disrupt production, then, of course, that is a serious setback and is a false economy. So, even though it’s, in a sense, wasteful, to have multiple supply chains and to keep inventories, rather than depend on just in time delivery, that is the kind of resilience which we ought to perhaps be prepared to pay for. And to take another example, in Europe I think it’s the case that in Germany they’ve had a policy of having a lot more intensive care beds in their hospitals and keeping about 20% of them free for any emergency. We have economised in this country and, therefore, have been under greater pressure than they have. So, those are examples where we have to decide it’s worth spending extra, in order to sustain resilience, even at the cost of, in a sense, loss of efficiency in a narrow economic sense.
So, why were even rich countries so unprepared for COVID? It’s because Politicians and the public have a local focus. They downplay the long-term and the global and they ignore a very nice maxim from a book by Nate Silver. He says, “The unfamiliar is not the same as the improbable,” and no-one could have said that a coronavirus, like we just had, was improbable. And we are in denial about all these emergent threats in our interconnected world, like the ones I mentioned: bioterror, electric grid breakdowns, etc., and there are really two or three different categories. Some are slowly emerging, like climate change and environmental degradation. They’re caused by humanity’s ever heavier collective footprints and we know all about these, but we fail to prioritise countermeasures, because their worst impact stretches beyond the time horizon of political and investment decisions.
We need to think about what happens in the lifetime of babies born today, who will still be alive in the 22nd Century and we are going to be too late. It’s like the proverbial boiling frog, contented in a warming tank of water, until it’s too late to save itself. That’s the threat we’re under, regarding climate changes and loss of biodiversity. And those are long-term threats, but the other class of threats, like pandemics, are immediately destructive, could happen at any time, and the worst could be so devastating that one occurrence is too many. And what is, I think, most concerning, is that the probability and potential severity of these is increasing, because of more crowded population, more interconnectedness, etc. So, it’s far more likely that something, which started in one country or one continent, will spread globally, given that we depend on our global systems for our food and for the internet and for financial systems, etc. And, of course, turning back to what we’ve heard about Japan, there are some natural events, like earthquakes, volcanoes and solar flares, they are natural, and their annual probability is not rising. It’s independent of humans, but their economic and human costs do get greater, as populations grow, and global infrastructure becomes more vulnerable.
So, COVID-19 reminds us of the urgency of the issues that we’re addressing today and implies, for me, that we’re going to have a bumpy ride through this century, unless we prioritise resilience and preparedness for what, at first sight, may seem unlikely events. So, thank you very much, Patricia.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you, Martin, and thanks to all three speakers, I think, for getting us off to a very good start with some really interesting ideas. Megumi, I want to go back to something that y0u were talking about quite a bit and that is the Sendai Framework. And my sense is, and correct me if I’m wrong, but that the Sendai Framework is something that, you know, has been developed under this multilateral framework, but that developing countries have taken this up and there’s been all sorts of effort put into developing countries with this framework, but developed countries, I’m not even sure if you asked people in most of Western Europe, for example, if they’d know what the Sendai Framework is. Is this a gap? I mean, has this – has it been an important feature in the discussions in Japan, for example, recently? Or is this something where we’re at risk of losing sight of something that could really be a useful tool for everyone and not just a set of targeted countries?
Dr Megumi Muto
Thank you very much for that good point. As I come from JICA, we are in the business of international co-operation. I, myself, I tend to focus on the developing partners, and we do have a lot of technical assistances, international conferences, joint discussions with UNDRR, as Mihir-san was explaining, we do all that. In the context of developed economies, I’m not an expert of that exchange, but we have had a sense that in the US there is a theme, in the European context they are different institutions, they are learning processes. So, I think we thought it has been taken care of. This is my personal reaction to that question, thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Yes, I think we see that a lot. So, for example, in conflict prevention efforts, so little goes into industrially developed countries, it all goes into developing countries, and maybe we’re missing something here. And this has exposed a vulnerability that’s global and nothing to do with – and it’s more to do with our governance structures and that would bring me to Mihir, really. I mean, I was fascinated by some of the points you made, particularly on the issue of resilience and intersectionality, which, of course, leads me to think about the complexity and how, with complex systems, it’s very hard to know how one part of it will impact on the other part of it. And that brings me to one of the things that you mentioned, and I’d like all of our panellists to think about this, and that’s the issue of monitoring and measuring effective resilience measures and how do we know? I think this speaks very much, as well, to Martin’s point about the trade-off re: resilience and efficiency. How do we build measures that we know will be cost effective, both in the short-term and the long-term, so that we can incentivise building in resilience? So, Mihir, if you could have a go at answering that and I’ll turn to Martin with a similar question, I think.
Mihir Bhatt
Sure. So, this is a very important question from what Megumi-san mentioned and I think the Sendai Framework is a very good framework to start with for measuring and monitoring. In fact, one has seen some initiatives, not systematically, but some initiative by World Economic Forum, the G7 and G20, taking up parts of the framework, or Sendai Framework, either formally, informally, but that process has started and that needs to be accelerated, if I may suggest that. And once it is accelerated, how do you measure that and how do you actually make sure that that is happening?
And there are two tier approaches that are being taken in Asia-Pacific and maybe that’s useful for global purpose, as well. One is the self-reporting and I think that’s very important, which gives us space to respective governments, communities, institution, to self-report what they have done, and the matter there used is something which is called ‘appreciative enquiry’. So, either you go and tell, “Have you done this, yes or no?” or say that “Look, I’ve heard you’ve taken some very interesting measures, as far as flood relief is concerned,” for example, in the State of Kerala, where they’ve done tremendous, good work since 2018 floods that they had and then you say exactly what you’ve done, “Tell us more about it.” And I think any sort of well thinking human being, towards the end, will say, “Yes, we would have liked to do this, this, then this.” And that’s a very, sort of, wholesome and comprehensive measurement, which is self-reported. I am not saying we should only rely on that, but that would be very good, sort of, local self-reporting.
And as Lord Rees said, I’m not at all, you know, blind to the global challenges that we are facing, and from the global point of view, the measurement, which I have found in our work which would be very useful, is actually to introduce the concepts and the future, which cannot be seen from local value, if you mean – if you will. That, you know, if you know what’s coming, local can start thinking about what’s coming and how do you prepare for that. So, I think that would be measuring how well we are defining concept, addressing concept, developing complexity, which is coming in concepts. Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you, and Martin, if I could turn to you to - for a similar question, it’s really about, you know, when you talked about this trade-off between resilience and efficiency, there are some things which are win-win, I suspect. And also, how do we build in the incentives for going forward and try to change the culture of thinking about, you know, cheap versus quality, if you like, or, you know, building in, really thinking about the future when we do make decisions about things like supply chains?
Lord Martin Rees
Yes, hmmm hmm. Well, of course, since everything is changing much faster than in earlier centuries, it’s very hard to make confident predictions about what we should do for the future. But I think the main problem, really, is that Politicians naturally focus on the immediate and the local and it’s hard to get them to take seriously what may happen in a distant part of the world 20 years from now, which, of course, is what they have to do if we want to address climate change and they will only do that if they feel that they won’t lose votes by doing it. And that’s why I think it is very, very important to raise the public consciousness of these long-term threats. In particular climate and biodiversity, as well as the fact that technology is so powerful that we’ve got to make sure we can harness its benefits, without these nightmarish downsides materialising. We’ve got to do that, and so, I think it’s very important to have, sort of, charismatic figures who can influence the public.
Let me give two examples of this. In the lead up to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015 there was a papal encyclical, which was extremely effective in emphasising the importance of cherishing the planet and the vulnerabilities, etc. The Pope got a standing ovation at UN. He’s got a billion followers in Latin America, Africa and East Asia, and his influence made it easier to get the consensus at the Paris Conference. And to take a more parochial example, in the UK, a not very enlightened Minister introduced legislation to ban non-reusable plastics in drinking straws and things like that. He did that only because he knew the public was sensitised to the issue of plastic pollution of the ocean, in particular by BBC TV programmes fronted by our secular Pope, David Attenborough and millions of people were, thereafter, aware of this. And so, I think we’ve got to ensure that charismatic figures make the public aware and the Politicians will then respond, but they won’t respond if they don’t think they’ll gain votes by it.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you, Martin. I’m now going to turn to Lord Toby Harris, who has recently set up a new commission called the UK National Preparedness Commission. Toby, I know you had a question in the questions and answers, but I think people would be very interested to hear about the purpose of the Commission and what you want to achieve with it, as well.
Lord Toby Harris
Thank you very much, Patricia, and thank you for calling me and also for Chatham House for being a partner organisation for the Commission. We’ve set ourselves the rather grand objective of promoting better preparedness for a major crisis or incidence within the UK. And although this was in planning before COVID struck, I think there is an opportunity, if that’s the way you can express it, that what has come as a shock to many people is how quickly the norms of modern life unravelled during the course of COVID. We all got used to this way of communicating, which for many people, was a complete novelty, but that’s just one of many things, the way in peo – which people interact has altered. So, there has been this massive change and the purpose of the Commission, which brings together many eminent people, including, I’m pleased to say, Martin Rees, as well as yourself, Patricia, to think about these issues, is to be both strategic and in terms of recognising all the things that we need to be doing, but also practical, in terms of encouraging specific initiatives and specific action. And we’ll be producing policy papers and seeking to promote them over the period ahead.
But one of the things that I think is extremely interesting, I mean, I’d welcome the panellists’ views on this, is how do you actually create a situation in which you build – by promoting resilience or incentivising resilience, not only in the whole population, but in all different organisations? And, actually, the same applies internationally between countries, that essentially means that because more and more entities are resilient and prepared, you build a, sort of, herd immunity, if I can use that phrase, a herd immunity, so that if, in the event of a major crisis, society as a whole, the globe as a whole, the country as a whole, is better able to deal with, you know, the issues that arise? And I think if we can crack that, work out how to make that happen, we’re making significant progress in dealing with some of the existential or major threats that we face.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you, Toby. I think this is, as well, the anti-fragility idea that Nicholas Taleb had, and I think, you know, it’s a, sort of, an – it’s more like a vaccination, I would say, or an inoculation and how do we do that? Just to make sure we’re not suggesting herd immunity through infection.
I won’t turn straightaway to our panellists, ‘cause I want to give a few other people some – stay with us, Toby, on the screen, and I want to give a few others that we want to call on. And I’m looking at Dina Mufti, who’s asked that I may ask this question on her behalf, and that is, which I think is a really important question, “How is disaster risk reduction funded in our countries and what are the repeated challenges and how they can be overcome?” And she’s got a special question for you, Martin, on your book and whether or not “civilisation will survive the 21st Century,” I think she wants your opinion. So, I think read the book, Dina, you probably have, judging from it, but that’s a question, I think, specifically for you.
And then, I’d like to turn to David Rubens for a question that he wants to ask, if we can unmute you, David, that would be great.
Dr David Rubens
Thank you, Patricia. I hope I’m not coming up on – thank you, Patricia, and just to say – also, just to say good morning to Toby Harris, I’m also actually on the National Preparedness Commission. It’s a question for Dr Muto specifically, but to all panellists. In the 2011 East Japan Tsunami and the nuclear reactor breakdown, the official report by Professor Kiyoshi Kurokawa, which is a government report, made it absolutely clear that this was a manmade disaster, based on significant failures and collaboration and collusion between the government regulatory authorities and the nuclear power sector. The truth is, in so many of these things to do with global resilience, we know what to do. The question is, how do we gain adoption and implementation on a sustained basis over significant timescales? So, we have the – we understand the policies, what are the procedures and what is the methodology? Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you, David. I’ve got two more questions that I’m going to take, and we may get some more later, and I want to make sure everyone gets a chance to ask their questions, ‘cause I think some of the answers might be quite long. So, I hope you’re all taking notes and can remember the questions. So, the next is from Trisha de Borchgrave, Trish?
Trisha de Borchgrave
Oh, sorry, I wasn’t expecting you to come to me. I thought you were going to read it out, Patricia. Good morning everyone, thank you very much. I guess, for a lot of citizens, we’re at this very frustrated stage where we feel that we’re all, you know, subject to electoral cycles by our Politicians, they promise everything, they don’t deliver, and we’re in this over and over and over again. Is there a way that now, knowing what resilience means and working on it, as everyone here is and thinking about it, that we start to put this into a, sort of, legally binding framework for, if you like, the constitution of countries, so that this is outside the remit of a Politician, this is outside the remit of someone’s career and it’s actually a statement of legal intent that they have to stick to? The SDGs are fantastic, but they’re not legally binding. Can we actually start to focus in, a little bit more, on a country’s commitment to environmental and human resilience, away from the hands of Politicians, if you like? Thank you very much.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thanks, Trish, and I would – I think that’s a really good question. I would add into that, you know, the role of the insurance companies. You know, we make it a legal requirement for everyone to insure their car when they’re driving, for example, what can we do there to increase, sort of, legal requirements through insurance, would be another. I know it was brought up in, I think, either Martin’s or, I think – can’t remember which one, but somebody brought it up, sorry, I’ve got my notes here.
And then my – the last question I’ve got in this section is James Albert, James, please?
James Albert
Good morning, my question, in a sense, follows on from Dina Mufti’s question: are you optimistic? I’m not, myself, but do you – if you are optimistic, is it because of policy or because you’re – you think you’re being realistic, or is simply in order not to get depressed?
Dr Patricia Lewis
Or is it the only way to live? So, okay, I’m going to turn back to our three panellists. I think I might do it in reverse order, if that’s okay. So, I’m going to go to you first, Martin.
Lord Martin Rees
Yes, well, let me address the point that Trisha made about make it mandatory for companies, etc., to do this long-term planning for resilience. I think it is a matter of legislation that is going to be required and perhaps, also, a change in culture, away from the quarterly reports and all the short-term pressures, which business seems to be under, so, I think it’s got to be a change there.
But I think, turning to the Fukushima disaster, for instance, which was a classic example of a, sort of, cascade, where the tsunami went into the power station and flooded the emergency generators and all that and led to radiation release, I think that tells us that before we can make sensible regulations, we do need to have more detailed scenario of exploration to think through all the things can happen. Because lots of these things caught us unawares and so, before we can make sensible planning and before an insurance company can decide appropriate premiums, I think we do need a lot more, sort of, studies of how these risks are interconnected. I mean, it is, indeed, very difficult, but I think we have to prioritise this. This can be done in academia and insurance companies and in businesses, because we need to explore the interconnectedness and see if we can model what might happen and unless we can do that, we can’t prepare.
And to put in a plug, the book that’s been referred to is called On the Future, and it does address some of these questions.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thanks, Martin. I mean, I think, as well, you know, we – at Chatham House, we use simulations for stress testing policies and it’s a particularly good way of putting people through the paces and making them see what happens when you get a cascading disaster. We’ve done quite a few of these now and…
Lord Martin Rees
Yeah, yes.
Dr Patricia Lewis
…it really – ‘cause it’s a lot of fun, as well, doing it. But it really concentrates the mind and makes you realise what might happen as a result, often, of the decisions that you made in good faith. So…
Lord Martin Rees
Hmmm hmm.
Dr Patricia Lewis
…it’s quite a useful technique. So, I’m going to go now to Mihir, to ask him to respond to any of the questions that you wish to, Mihir.
Mihir Bhatt
Yeah, what a good set of questions. I’ll start with Toby Harris and you talked about a herd sort of mentality, how countries could come together too, and I think herd, I’ve used it more in terms of animals and so, I’d like to use the word ‘pioneer’, if you will, and can then be a pioneering countries, which will lead this process. And G7 and G20, we’ve tried, and we know how much it will work, it will not work, maybe some other configuration, but, you know, some pioneering in this case, would be very useful. Japan may want to take a more active lead than it has taken so far. Though it, as an SFDRR, it has taken a great lead.
The second was about funding, Patricia, you asked about, and I’d like to put a slightly different view on funding, and looking at India, but also, what’s happening in South Asia and parts of South East Asia, with majority of risk reduction and loss and damage is actually absorbed by the people themselves. So, I shouldn’t be kidding that, you know, either governments or private sectoral insurances joined it. Just because it’s not monetised, we don’t really know about it, but large portion of funding is done by the poor people themselves, common people themselves, and remaining institutional structures are paid by the authorities. So, I think we should look at that what is it that we can do, so that people can actually use that money that they use time, that they use effort, do more sensi – more sensibly, vis-à-vis tinker around, you know, where does the money come from, this budget, public sector/private sector? I think private sector can play, also, far more active role than it has played so far, and World Economic Forum would be a good place to start with, that’s one funding.
The third point was by Dr David Rubens and I totally agree that we, as a society, global society, have agreed to keep large number of vulnerable people vulnerable. There is no reason why they should continue to be there. And I think the onus is on us to make far more active and accelerated actions, than the onus that then to put it on them. The rate at which we are reducing risk and addressing, as I said before, is far slow than the rate at which the risks, both the risks are increasing, and people are affected by that. So, that gap, you know, that must be filled, there cannot be more urgent moment for that and maybe that’s what your commission could look at.
And the last point was by Trisha and to look at – put it in Constitution and I don’t see there is a need to put it in Constitution, because Constitution already says that it is responsibility of the state to, at least, do two things. One is to protect the citizen from outside aggression and second, save the lives of the citizens. So, this, I mean, you know, you have to save the life of every citizen and, therefore, you can’t save life if you can’t save life by floods, disaster, drought, etc. So, only the argument has to be extended, by various legal measures, then lerook at – then lerook – then relook at the constitution, per se, that may be one way out. Of course, I’m not a constitutional expert, so, somebody else would be far better to tailor fruit.
And the last is about what Mr Albert-san talk about, is the wiry optimism. I mean, why do we have optimism? And, of course, one is, to an extent, realistic, to an extent, hopeful, to an extent, romantic, also, but I think, for me, personally, the optimism comes when you see hundreds and hundreds of people, during pandemic, making their own life, their neighbour’s life safe, reaching out to others and make sure that they’re able to reach from one town to another, doing entirely on their own. So, I think one is optimistic because of humanity that it still exists, luckily, and how do we build on that? Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much, and I think that’s a great segue, as well, into Megumi, ‘cause Megumi, I mean, a large part of what you’re doing, I know, is very much centred on the framework of human security and responsibility of the state for human security. So, I wondered if you could say a few word – in your words, about that as the framework for thinking about this?
Dr Megumi Muto
Okay, thank you very much. I think I should, first, talk about the Fukushima question. This is all my personal view, but the incidence of Fukushima has been a tremendous wakeup call for the society as a whole in Japan. And it is not just about a failure of the scenario setting, it is not just about the industrial interest, but it was really the core – it hit the core issue of energy security, as well as the Paris Climate ambition. I was, personally, assisting the process of writing up the long-term strategy of Japan for the Paris Agreement and I witnessed it was very clear that because of this Fukushima incident, Japan could not be bold on the ambition, because everyone, if you calculate, you know without nuclear, we cannot be bold on the – any climate ambition. So, it was very – I would say, it was such a reality of trade-offs, very important national security, as well as resilience trade-offs, were revealed. So, the only lesson I can say is that, well, we don’t put off deciding on very harsh trade-off type of policy issues.
And then, on the human security, thank you for mentioning that and we just had a commemoration or – event for Madame Sadako Ogata, who was leading JICA for a while and she was famous for promoting human security in the UN and especially in the area of helping with the refugees. Now, at JICA we are really taking the as – human security as a philosophy and disaster risk reduction is one of the top issues that we put emphasis on. And from that perspective, we really wish to make sure that it’s not only the system, but it’s really the communities and individuals, and as Mihir San rightly pointed out, how to empower the people. It’s not just the state providing, I mean, human security to the people, but how to empower the people to get themselves resilient is key. And we are trying to develop programmes and a partnership for that purpose. Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much, indeed. This has been a fascinating discussion. I mean, we’re nearly at the end, but we have one question that just came in from my colleague, Dr Beyza Unal. She’s asked it to Martin Rees, but I wonder if, in fact, this shouldn’t be for everyone, and that is that “We’ve got our National Risk Registers and each country has its own way of doing this,” but – and in that, of course, we would have mitigation measures, “but should we be, in fact, thinking instead of having national resilience registers, as well, sort of, a risk resilience framework, so that we think about – when we’re thinking about risk, we’re also thinking about resilience? Would this be a really sensible way to go?” And that – and if – you know, and I’ll just go now in the same order. So, sorry, Megumi, I’m going back to you now for a quick reaction to that, then Mihir and then Martin. I wonder if, Toby, you might want to just give your quick reaction to that, as well. So, Megumi.
Dr Megumi Muto
Sorry, maybe I will respond later, I have to digest the question.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Maybe Japan already has a resilience…
Dr Megumi Muto
Hmmm hmm.
Dr Patricia Lewis
…framework for thinking about this, I don’t know. Mihir?
Mihir Bhatt
Yeah, I think it’s a very good idea to look at – to create a resilience register. I think it may face same difficulty and we need to anticipate, that the National Risk Register faces, as well, for example, one of the largest debts in the state of Orissa is not by cyclones or, for that matter, flooding, but is by snakebites. And a National Risk Register may not necessarily take snakebites as a risk that they would like to address. So, I think a lot of, sort of, harmonisation amid local reality would be very useful. But it’s a very good idea and I think it should be developed further at Chatham House.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thanks, Mihir, and Martin?
Lord Martin Rees
Yes, well, I think there’s no point in having a Risk Register if it doesn’t lead to some measures to reduce or mitigate those risks. And so, the key thing, as I mentioned, is to be prepared to pay the appropriate insurance premium to cover against these risks, that’s very important.
But if I can go back to James Albert, who asked, “Are we optimistic or pessimistic?” I think we will have as bumpy ride, but I think we’ve got to bear in mind that science is not only the cause of many of our problems, but it’s also the cure of many of them. And the stakes are getting higher as science gets more powerful, but we can’t feed or provide energy for the whole world, without advances in science. We’ve got to make sure that these are fuelled by responsible innovation and we can control the downsides. So, we don’t want to put the brakes on new ideas, we’d want to ensure that they are channelled towards benefits and we do have resilience against the downsides.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Toby, and then I’ll go back to Megumi for the last word.
Dr Megumi Muto
Okay, thank you very much. I think I had the trouble with the word ‘register’, because I was thinking land registry, what is that? Okay. Yeah, I think it’s a signal for resilience, I understand, informational, I would say, of the registry. I think that the private market can be creative in that. I’ve seen business continuity credit rating systems here in Japan being developed and that market mechanism is flourishing right now, be it in the ESG, or now it’s coming to the resilience. Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
That’s a great idea. Toby, you’ve got the last word.
Lord Toby Harris
Wasn’t intentional. Look, we all have this tendency to think we’ve sorted a problem out because we’ve put it on our to do list. You find plenty of businesses that think they’ve dealt with the risk ‘cause they’ve put it on the Risk Register, then they never look at it, or they spend two minutes at the end of a board meeting looking at it. I think National Risk Registers are much the same. What we tend not to do is put in, quite clearly, what the mitigation measures are and then to try and assess whether the mitigation measures and the expenditure put on one risk is commensurate with some of the other risks and their consequences, and I think that’s a big failure. So, we need – probably need a baseline assessment to tell us about the extent to which we are properly resilient and prepared and that I don’t think is available. There may be some countries in the world who’ve done that, but I think that’s a first step.
And the other thing, which I think underpins all of this, is we’ve got to ensure that the people have trust in their government on these issues and when you don’t have that trust, then the whole – to degrade and break down. I’ll stop there.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Oh, I feel we could go on for a lot longer. I feel we’ve just begun to scratch the surface, but that’s, you know, that’s the way of these one-hour webinars, but I hope that it’s stimulated thinking. I hope people have found it as interesting as I have. I’ve been fascinated by the very different perspectives and the practical ideas, going forward.
I just want to thank each of our speakers for being so generous with their time and their knowledge and helping us. And I also want to thank all of our participants and those who asked questions and those who didn’t, just for participating and listening. And I hope you take all of this away and start thinking, ‘cause we really need to think through how to build resilience, how to revitalise this way of thinking in a way that we seem to have lost a bit. And this is, as you said, Martin, a wakeup call. And if we can, as well, I think, think about how to build in incentives for thinking like this, because people’s memories are short, that’s one thing I have learnt. People forget quite quickly, when things return to normal or whatever, new normal, or whatever it is for everybody, people will then think it wasn’t that bad and they will forget, and in ten years’ time, it won’t be the biggest feature in our thinking. So, how do we build that in, how do we build in sustainability of resilience into our frameworks for developing our national security and safety and human security frameworks?
So, thank you each so much and thanks for everybody for attending. Goodbye now.
Lord Toby Harris
Bye.
Dr Megumi Muto
Thank you so much.
