Whom to Blame for a 'Manageable' Hazard ? --- Part 3

Source: http://climateobserver.org/unfccc-last-round-negotiations-limas-climate-summit-opens-bonn/

“We can seal the deal with you on the condition that no funding goes to India!” said my classmates representing the States to another group representing China, in the Global Environmental Change class of last week, a role-play simulation of COP23 climate negotiation. 

“We cannot use the excuse of money – or the lack of it – not to do anything. Yes, developed countries have to make financial commitments, but what if they don’t?” Charles Hopkins, from international humanitarian charity CARE International in Ethiopia called for government especially those in Africa, to make the policies for disaster management in place. 

This urgent appeal sent by Mr Hopkins as well as the simulated international game of ‘give-and-take’ are both consistent with what I am going to talk about here to end the Himalayas hazard blog series. 

The occurrence and consequence of hazards in the Himalayas in last few decades compel us to think proactively how to improve the risk mitigation and climate change adaption cross bordering countries prone to hazard impact. Moreover, there is a need to impose glacier hazard management on the nation and region policies and regulations. As suggested by Carey et al., 2012 based on forty-years experience of glacier hazard management of Lake 513, Cordillera Blanca, Peru, the ideal glacier hazard mitigation and climate change adaption should generate a 'socio-environmental system' comprising:

• abundant knowledge to identify and predict hazards from the climate change
• engineering strategies to reduce the vulnerability 
• relocation and removal of all exposed populations and properties from hazard-prone areas
• political and socio-economic measure to raise awareness of risk and enhance resilience 

However, what are the social and endogenous factors impeding hazard management?

There are three dominant social factors we need to consider and address simultaneously,  In particular, ''the poverty of the Himalaya countries and relatively weak state'' present what environmental economist Neil Adger and others have called “limits to adaptation”. 

1. Risk perception: People vulnerable to the glacier hazard, in particular in downstream area, are lack of awareness of full picture of risk, rarely perceive the danger. In addition, culture, ethics, and knowledge are also the impediments, for example, people are often not willing to accept the information or scientific warning when the risk management plan threaten their autonomy. 
2. Cost & Budget: lack of continuous budget or funds for equipment and projects deployment to conduct long-term glaciology and climate change studies. Take the well-known Doppler Radar, for example, it is priced over $3 million and costly to maintain. 
3. Trans-boundary responsibility problem: bordering countries in Himalayas (Nepal, Indian, Pakistan, Bhutan, Tibet/China..etc) to put explicit rules in place on how the resource and information will be shared between nations without calling into question the social relationship and create a governance network.

Who can help to make a change?

1. Governments: Improving infrastructure and building institutional capacity to reduce risk and response disasters, require money support, which politician must make available. It is of crucial importance to focus on both technical solutions and human-society resiliency. Coping with Himalayan hazard issues require trans-boundary and international cooperation to take place. 
2. Local Community: local know-how to minimise the losses, effective dialogue at the community level to understand the causes. “Local actions by the people need to be supported because they are the most vulnerable and are more likely to put effort into adaptation measures,” says Professor Richard Klein, of the Stockholm Environment Institute 
3. Disaster management experts: working outside the government, e.g. geoengineering consultancy has speciality of glacial hazard assessment and mitigation
4. UN system, non-government players & multinational funds: stepping in to support the countries of great poverty 

In summary, facing the complex and multinational hazards in the Himalayas, there should be No Blame Culture among the countries. Glacial hazard management has implication well beyond the hazard mitigation itself, but also apply to climate change adaption and socio-economic sustainability. Policy-makers should recognise the challenges and variables which we have presented in these three blogs, work together with countries across borders and involve the local community, incorporate strategies in national policy and international agreements.

Below is an example flowchart of step-by-step approach to GLOF risk assessment studies in Nepal (ICIMOD, 2011). 

Source: A comprehensive approach and methods for glacial lake outburst flood risk assessment, with examples from Nepal and the transboundary area