Lessons from Japan for Disaster Risk Reduction in Africa
The recent environmental tragedies in Japan are a reminder that natural disasters are a constant threat to human security. Africa should learn to adequately prepare for risks.
Irene Ndung’u, Research consultant and coordinator, Peace Missions Programme, ISS Pretoria Office
The recent environmental disasters in Japan are a bleak reminder that natural disasters are a constant threat to human security. Reducing their risks can no longer be pushed to the backburner of national planning agendas, especially granted the increasing severity and frequency of environmental calamities. And while earthquakes in Japan may have triggered the devastating tsunami, the ensuing nuclear radiation exposure and leakages were a direct result of a potentially dangerous technology, namely nuclear power.
In order therefore to establish what lessons can be drawn from the events in Japan, it is important to first consider Africa’s vulnerability to earthquakes and tsunamis.
The UN Global Seismic Hazard Map indicates that the most seismically active regions of Africa are along the Maghreb and its Mediterranean coast, which include countries like Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria, all of whom have shown interest in adopting nuclear technology. The Rift Valley region in East Africa is also another seismically active zone, which extends from the Middle East into the Great Lakes region. Kenya and Tanzania already have proposals for nuclear power generation and the Democratic Republic of Congo has a research nuclear reactor. Sudan hopes to have a working nuclear power plant by 2020.
South Africa has one nuclear plant with two reactors – the only ones on the continent. When the earthquake and ensuing tsunami struck Japan, questions were raised about the preparedness of South Africa to similar disasters. The Fukushima disasters especially evoked concerns about the safety of the Koeberg reactors. According to the South African Press Agency, officials from Eskom (the South African public electricity utility) assured South African Members of Parliament that the Koeberg nuclear power plant, which is located near the city of Cape Town, can withstand both tsunamis and earthquakes. The plant is built on a raft that can withstand shocks of up to 7.0 on the Richter scale and, given South Africa’s seismic history, the likelihood of such an earthquake striking is quite unlikely. However, even though the continent with its envisioned nuclear power may not be prone to earthquakes, it is rather unsettling to imagine the existence of such technology in countries where insurgencies, rampant crime and high corruption levels create hostile environments.
According to geologists, tsunamis are also unlikely to occur in Africa. However, the continent is likely to feel their after-effects like it did when the 2004 tsunami that swept 7 000km from the epicentre to the East African coast, with South Africa only experiencing tidal waves. With the risk of both an earthquake and tsunami unlikely in South Africa, it is hardly surprising that the country intends to continue its pursuit of nuclear energy.
However, while Africa may not be as vulnerable as Japan or other continents to earthquakes or tsunamis, other disasters continue to pose major obstacles to efforts to achieve sustainable development, especially in view of the continent’s deficient capabilities of predicting, monitoring, dealing with and mitigating humanitarian disasters. Indeed as former president of Nigeria Olesugun Obasanjo wisely declared, there are silent tsunamis taking place every day on the continent: hunger and malnutrition, diseases like HIV/Aids etc. It is as such important to consider what lessons Africa can draw from the unfortunate events in Japan.
First, the prioritisation of disaster risks by the Japanese Government is credited with preventing the loss of more lives and further damages from the earthquake and tsunami. Africa could learn from this. Disaster planning in Africa is more often than not a reactive rather than a pro-active process. Furthermore, inadequate human and financial resources are allocated for disaster responses. This approach needs to change and planning strategies in Africa need to become more pre-emptive.
Furthermore, even though the continent may not be as seismically vulnerable or prone to tsunamis as Japan, there is still a need to plan for such seemingly unlikely events. When the tsunami hit the East African coast, for instance, most of these countries were caught flat-footed. Communities, especially fishermen, lost their livelihoods and governments could not compensate them because no contingency plans were in place. In addition, flooding as a result of heavy rainfall and tropical storms continue to claim many lives and livelihoods, as the floods in South Africa earlier this year demonstrated.
Second, besides being poorly funded, the existing early warning systems for disasters are woefully lacking in terms of skills and manpower. Consequently, it is questionable whether these structures can respond to legitimate warnings of impending disasters. There are no cohesive regional response mechanisms for environmental disasters, with bureaucratic bottlenecks compounding responses, especially when one country wishes to offer its neighbour emergency disaster assistance. Improving regional observation and early warning systems, preparedness and recovery systems will go a long way in reducing disaster risks and the impact of disasters when they do happen.
Third, though Africa’s energy needs are growing exponentially, prudence is needed in the search for alternative energy sources. While many countries on the continent pursue nuclear energy, these ambitions are not matched by the requisite financial resources and skills. Many countries across the world have now been forced to re-think nuclear technology as a viable and safe alternative to other energy sources. The recent demonstrations and the moratorium on nuclear technology in Germany are an example of this. Until African countries with nuclear ambitions can demonstrate capacity for hosting such technology, they are well placed to pursue ‘safer’ technologies such as wind power.
Fourth, disasters are expensive. It is estimated that it will cost the Japanese government over $300 billion to recover. Granted Africa’s development needs, disasters are catastrophic to the realisation of development objectives. In 2005 in Hyogo, Japan, at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) was adopted as a ten-year global blueprint for disaster reduction. The Framework urges the reduction of the vulnerability of the African people to hazards as a necessary element of poverty reduction strategies. In line with the HFA, Africa does have such a strategy (Africa Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction for the years 2006-2015) and a Programme of Action (POA) for its implementation. The overall goal of the strategy is to ‘substantially reduce the economic, environmental and social impacts of disasters on the continent people and economy’. However, people on the continent continue to lose their lives and properties from risks that have been planned against. And so, while policies and strategies on paper, may demonstrate political will by African leaders, translating this ‘will’ into concrete actions will be key to successful disaster mitigation plans.
The meeting of the African Working Group on Disaster Risk Reduction in Nairobi, Kenya from 29-31 March, which is intended to address the way forward for reducing disaster risks in Africa, is timeous. Even though it may be impossible to completely eliminate risks, as the disasters in Japan have taught us, adequately planning against them undoubtedly minimises the severity of their impact.
