FLOODING IN THAILAND
Flooding has devastated the country yet again this year. Since July 25, triggered by tropical storm Nock-Ten, widespread floods have killed 59 people and affected 3.8 million. At least nine provinces remain flooded. And only four months ago, still fresh in the minds of many, flash floods swept through the country, killing at least 51 people and affecting more than 2 million people in the South. The total cost to the Thai economy was at least 9 billion baht.
While the destruction wrought by floods is certainly a result of the whims of nature, it has also been exacerbated by the human action of emitting greenhouse gases. Over the past 30 years, storms and floods have become more frequent and intense, a trend projected in numerous climate change assessments. Furthermore, in the future, due to climate change, areas along the Gulf of Thailand are likely to suffer periods of prolonged flooding because the tidal range (the vertical difference between the high tide and the ensuing low tide) is small and the gulf's natural water level is very low. A World Bank study predicts that Thailand's storm surge zone _ the area affected by water accompanying storms _ will enlarge by 33%, the third most among East Asian countries. Preventing global climate change looks increasingly implausible as both developing and developed nations repeatedly fail to demonstrate sufficient political will to bear the costs of aggressively cutting their emissions.Other human decisions have multiplied the extent of flood damage. The number of people exposed to flooding has skyrocketed as people in urban areas, such as Hat Yai and Chiang Mai, have moved outwards into risky flood plains. To make matters worse, as seen in Hat Yai and Nakhon Ratchasima last year, roads and irrigation systems are preventing rainfall from draining naturally, thereby increasing the amount of runoff.
The government's support for building dams along the Mekong River further increases the vulnerability of those living near the river. Recently, the Lao government and the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand gave the developer Ch Karnchang permission to start building the Xayaburi Dam on the Mekong in Laos. But the Mekong River Commission asserts that dams such as this one will lead to the inundation of long stretches of land along the river.
Those people hurt most by flooding have only basic housing and little savings or access to insurance and other compensation mechanisms, and they rarely live in central districts of Bangkok. The city escapes heavy flooding not because heavy rains do not fall there, but because the government diverts flood waters to areas outside the city.
The Thai government's recent efforts to improve its response to flooding should be applauded. It has commendably improved the capacity of the Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Department, which mainly focuses on relief, and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra plans to improve the coordination of flood relief efforts by bringing together state agencies to operate as a one-stop service unit.
However, the government could do more to prevent and proactively reduce the risk of flooding, instead of responding reactively. Proactive responses would not only save lives and reduce injuries but also would soften the costs to the economy. Studies have shown that spending on prevention is ten times more valuable than spending on relief.
First, it would be wise to halt building big dams on the mainstream Mekong River but also on the country's largest rivers and tributaries. The revived Kaeng Sua Ten Dam on the Yom River would destroy large swathes of teak forest. Rather than constructing huge infrastructure projects, the government could instead, and with more benefit, build small dykes and reservoirs along minor tributaries and dredge canals and swamps. Just as importantly, the government could invest in preserving the country's natural resilience to floods by protecting and restoring wetlands, forests and mangroves and by not constructing roads, buildings, and other infrastructure in flood-prone areas.
Second, it would benefit the country if the government gave higher priority to climate change adaptation, which means decreasing the vulnerability of humans to the current and projected impact of climate change. Right now, the agency responsible for climate change _ the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Planning _ has capable people working on adaptation, but lacks resources and a sufficient mandate. Therefore, like Indonesia and Vietnam, the government could relocate responsibility for dealing with climate change to a more powerful office, such as the Office of the Prime Minister or the Finance Ministry. This agency could then create a National Adaptation Committee which could unify adaptation efforts and devote resources towards adaptation, including the reduction of flooding risk. Because the impact of climate change is still uncertain, adaptation mechanisms need to be flexible.
Third, the government could create a comprehensive risk map of the country, which would show areas most prone to disasters such as floods, landslides and droughts. Thongchai Roachanakanan, director of the Department of Town and Country Planning's Centre of Earthquake Disaster Watch and Studies, reportedly hopes to create a small-scale 1:2,000 map, potentially revealing where to build infrastructure and settlements and which areas are most prone to flooding and other disasters, but the project lacks funding. It would be a good investment to give him and those working on similar projects more financial and human resources.
Fourth, improving water management would help, too. Right now no single regulatory framework is in place and eight different agencies _ which rarely coordinate with each other _ are responsible for regulating water issues.
What the government could do is to integrate water management by insisting that agencies follow standard operation procedures and use simulation exercises for floods and droughts.
Implementing these four steps will take time, however, and floods will continue to ravage the country in the meantime. Still, the government could take the immediate step of improving the country's disaster warning system. Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra created the National Disaster Warning Centre but after he left, the agency was relegated to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology and it now has very few resources. To redress this problem, a disaster management specialist has recommended that the Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Department be made the focal point of coordinating a comprehensive warning system because the agency has the authority to evacuate people. It could then announce evacuation orders and direct other agencies to move people.
Implementing these policies will not be easy, given the country's current political economy, characterised by competitive clientilism, narrow coalitions of elite politicians and fragmented politics. However, experiences from other countries show that in the aftermath of disasters, including widespread flooding, political interest in reducing the risks of disasters will be strong and public opinion can be more easily influenced. So now is the ideal time for PM Yingluck to take advantage of this window by pushing for flood prevention policies.
Danny Marks is a consultant working on climate change issues in Thailand.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น